guild icon
Mayflower District Court
#state-of-mayflower-v-vinniemc2165
This is the start of #state-of-mayflower-v-vinniemc2165 channel.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-03-14 02:13 p.m.
New Case
Case Type
Criminal
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:48 p.m.
krabzkrabz used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-03-14 02:14 p.m.
Case Modified
@krabz has added @dero to the case channel.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-14 02:50 p.m.
@dero Draft a summons
dero
dero 2025-03-14 03:23 p.m.
@meowiitten
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-14 03:40 p.m.
@dero
meowiitten pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:48 p.m.
sadoimpactosadoimpacto used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-03-14 03:41 p.m.
Case Modified
@meowiitten has added @Frankie to the case channel.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-14 03:41 p.m.
@Frankie
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-14 03:55 p.m.
@Frankie
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-15 01:55 a.m.
@Frankie
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-15 01:55 a.m.
Okay let’s just do it like this
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-15 01:57 a.m.
@Public Defender's Office
Frankie
Frankie 2025-03-15 03:51 p.m.
@meowiitten I’m on deployment IRL
Frankie
Frankie 2025-03-15 03:52 p.m.
no access to a PC and very limited access to my phone
Frankie
Frankie 2025-03-15 03:53 p.m.
do what you need to do, i can’t attend a lego court rn
FrankieFrankie
@meowiitten I’m on deployment IRL
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-16 04:40 p.m.
Okay well come back
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-16 04:40 p.m.
This is more important
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
Okay well come back
Frankie
Frankie 2025-03-16 05:29 p.m.
okay well idc, find me in contempt or guilty or some shit
Frankie
Frankie 2025-03-16 05:29 p.m.
i really do not give a fuck
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-16 08:16 p.m.
@Public Defender's Office
sadoimpactosadoimpacto used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-03-16 10:38 p.m.
Case Modified
@meowiitten has added @Fish to the case channel.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-16 10:38 p.m.
@Fish
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-16 10:41 p.m.
@Frankie @Fish Before we proceed, I must ensure you understand your rights in this matter:

1. You have the right to remain silent. This means you do not have to speak or provide any information that could incriminate you.

2. You also have the right to have an attorney present during any questioning or legal proceedings. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you at no cost.

3. You have the right to a fair and public trial, where evidence will be presented, and witnesses can be called to testify on your behalf.

4. Furthermore, you have the right to confront witnesses against you, meaning you can question them in court.

5. Finally, you have the right to appeal any conviction or sentence imposed upon you.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-16 10:42 p.m.
This is Case Number CR-0082-25 before the Mayflower District Court in the County of Clark: State of Mayflower v. VinnieMC2165. The information is as follows:

COUNT ONE
SECOND-DEGREE MURDER (1 M.S.C. § 2102) - FELONY
On or about February 2, 2025, the defendant was inside the garage of the Clark County
Sheriff’s Office station, which is located within the geographical bounds of the State of
Mayflower. AmitBX, the victim entered the Clark County Sheriff’s Office Substations Garage in
his personal vehicle. Once the victim entered the building, the defendant began discharging his
firearm at the victim's vehicle which killed the victim.

COUNT TWO
ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON (1 M.S.C. § 2302) - FELONY
On or about February 2, 2025, the defendant was inside the garage of the Clark County
Sheriff’s Office, which is located within the bounds of the State of Mayflower. AmbitBX, the
victim, entered the Clark County Sheriff’s Office Substations Garage in his personal vehicle.
Once the victim entered the building, the defendant shot the victim even though the victim posed
no threat.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-16 10:43 p.m.
@Frankie How do you plead as to Count One, Second-Degree Murder?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-16 10:43 p.m.
@Frankie How do you plead as to Count Two, Assault With a Deadly Weapon?
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
@Frankie How do you plead as to Count One, Second-Degree Murder?
Frankie
Frankie 2025-03-16 11:19 p.m.
jesus christ, guilty
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
@Frankie How do you plead as to Count Two, Assault With a Deadly Weapon?
Frankie
Frankie 2025-03-16 11:19 p.m.
guilty
Frankie
Frankie 2025-03-16 11:19 p.m.
i can’t be bothered with this shit rn
Frankie
Frankie 2025-03-16 11:20 p.m.
go on sentence me
FrankieFrankie
jesus christ, guilty
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-16 11:25 p.m.
1. Are you aware that the maximum sentence for Count One is 40 minutes?
2. Are you aware that the maximum sentence for Count Two is 25 minutes?
3. Do you understand that if sentenced to consecutive time, these penalties could add up?
4. Has anyone threatened you or forced you to plead guilty today?
5. Are you pleading guilty voluntarily and of your own free will?
6. Do you understand that by pleading guilty, you are waiving your right to a trial?
7. Do you understand that by pleading guilty, you are giving up your right to present evidence and call witnesses in your defense?
8. Do you understand that you have the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself?
9. Do you understand that by pleading guilty, you are admitting to the facts of the charge(s) against you?
10. Have you had enough time to discuss your case with your attorney?
11. Are you satisfied with the legal representation you have received?
12. Has your attorney explained all of your rights and possible defenses to you?
13. Do you understand that if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you?
14. Do you understand that a guilty plea could affect your record and future opportunities?

Knowing all of this, do you still wish to plead guilty? If you have any objections or queries as to the above questions, please state them now. If you would like more time to address this case with your court-appointed counsel, please do so now.

If you do not have any objections and wish to proceed, please respond to this message only with: I enter this plea of guilty because I am in fact guilty.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-16 11:28 p.m.
@Fish
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
1. Are you aware that the maximum sentence for Count One is 40 minutes? 2. Are you aware that the maximum sentence for Count Two is 25 minutes? 3. Do you understand that if sentenc...
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-17 03:15 a.m.
@Frankie
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-17 06:26 p.m.
@Frankie
Fish
Fish 2025-03-17 09:16 p.m.
I dm’d my client yesterday but no response yet
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-18 06:26 p.m.
@Frankie
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-18 06:29 p.m.
@Fish If he does not respond to me by 3/19/2024 at 11:59 PM EDT I will proceed with a plea of not guilty
Fish
Fish 2025-03-18 06:34 p.m.
Ok
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
1. Are you aware that the maximum sentence for Count One is 40 minutes? 2. Are you aware that the maximum sentence for Count Two is 25 minutes? 3. Do you understand that if sentenc...
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-19 12:18 p.m.
@Frankie
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-23 02:49 p.m.
DOCKET ENTRY: Return on Summons/Initial Appearance/Arraignment as to Counts 1 and 2 held on 3/16/2025. VINNIEMC2165 appeared with counsel. Plea of NOT GUILTY entered as to Count 1 and 2.
meowiitten pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:48 p.m.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-23 02:49 p.m.
PAPERLESS ORDER: It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court confirms the State's obligation to disclose to the defendant all exculpatory evidence—namely, evidence that favors the defendant or casts doubt on the State's case—as required by the principles established in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny. The State is hereby ORDERED to fulfill this obligation. The State has a duty to disclose any evidence that negates the defendant's guilt, affects the credibility of a witness, or could potentially reduce a sentence. The defendant is entitled to this information without needing to make a request. Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence in a timely manner may result in consequences, including, but not limited to, exclusion of evidence, dismissal of the information, contempt proceedings, disciplinary action, or sanctions by the Court. Signed by Judge sadoimpacto on 3/23/2025.
meowiitten pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:48 p.m.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-23 02:50 p.m.
PAPERLESS STANDING PRETRIAL AND DISCOVERY ORDER: All parties are ordered to adhere to the following pretrial timelines. The pretrial window will close ten (10) days from March 23, 2025, concluding on April 2, 2024 at 11:59 PM EST barring extension for good cause or other unforeseen delay. By March 28, 2025 at 11:59 PM EST, all parties must disclose a final draft of their exhibit lists and witness lists. Additionally, all motions in limine must be filed no later than seventy-two (72) hours before the trial, with any oppositions due twenty-four (24) hours following the filing of such motions. Trial briefs, if any, are to be submitted no later than forty-eight (48) hours before the trial. Signed by Judge sadoimpacto on 3/23/2025.
@Fish @dero
meowiitten pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:48 p.m.
Fish
Fish 2025-03-23 08:12 p.m.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
CC: @meowiitten @dero
FishFish
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY CC: @meowiitten @dero
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-23 08:12 p.m.
I'd prefer that you don't move for discovery
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-23 08:12 p.m.
Unless the State refuses to provide something
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-23 08:13 p.m.
But I'll look at this
Fish
Fish 2025-03-23 08:13 p.m.
i just want to make my requests for every single thing i want clear
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-23 08:15 p.m.
The State is already obligated to act on most of your requests under the Brady order. Some of this would fall under attorney-work product privilege. Some of this they have already disclosed in the affidavit of probable cause. This isn't specific enough(edited)
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-23 08:16 p.m.
I'm not going to grant it. I'll only review a motion for discovery if it's something extraordinary (e.g. a prosecutor's DMs with a witness) or something the State refused to provide you
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-23 08:16 p.m.
A discovery order should be a last resort
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-23 08:17 p.m.
Not the first
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-23 08:17 p.m.
And if they violate any discovery order then you can put it on the record and ask for enforcement
dero
dero 2025-03-24 10:20 p.m.
@meowiitten ill have my discovery in tomorrow
dero
dero 2025-03-24 10:21 p.m.
i do want to make sure we have time to visit the multiple demands for evidence that will likely arise
dero
dero 2025-03-26 09:18 p.m.
@meowiitten @Fish @
Fish
Fish 2025-03-28 11:24 p.m.
meowiitten pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:48 p.m.
meowiitten pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:48 p.m.
Fish
Fish 2025-03-29 06:20 p.m.
@meowiitten I move to dismiss with prejudice as the government has not provided a list of witnesses as required by your order. They had multiple days and even were late from when they said they would submit it. This Court “holds the power to dismiss with prejudice as a sanction intended to prevent undue and unnecessary delays within the judicial process.” State v. BattalionGavin 1. Rid __ (2022).(edited)
FishFish
@meowiitten I move to dismiss with prejudice as the government has not provided a list of witnesses as required by your order. They had multiple days and even were late f...(edited)
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:21 p.m.
No
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:21 p.m.
They submitted their discovery
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:21 p.m.
There's just no witnesses on it
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:22 p.m.
Also this is a pretty odd thing to ask me to dismiss with prejudice for
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:22 p.m.
Discovery issues are resolved with continuances
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:22 p.m.
@dero Do you not intend to rely on any witnesses?
Fish
Fish 2025-03-29 06:22 p.m.
In gavin the submission for discovery was late and it was dismissed as a result even though the document was submitted shortly after
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:23 p.m.
Also, why are you giving me Ridgeway precedent?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:23 p.m.
Lol
Fish
Fish 2025-03-29 06:23 p.m.
What is wrong with Ridgeway precedent?
Fish
Fish 2025-03-29 06:23 p.m.
I can cite whatever i want
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:24 p.m.
Do I cite decisions from the Galactic Court of Justice?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:24 p.m.
Star Wars
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:24 p.m.
Let me just go do that
Fish
Fish 2025-03-29 06:24 p.m.
Ridgeway is a parallel jurisdiction where nearly the identical thing occurred in that case
Fish
Fish 2025-03-29 06:24 p.m.
Scom has even cited ridgeway decisions
Fish
Fish 2025-03-29 06:24 p.m.
lol
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:24 p.m.
I'll just have you know that I find anything from Ridgeway and Mayflower (NH or remade) extremely unpersuasive(edited)
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:25 p.m.
For future reference
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:25 p.m.
I abhor them all
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:25 p.m.
Or other Roblox communities outside of CC
Fish
Fish 2025-03-29 06:26 p.m.
Ok?
FishFish
@meowiitten I move to dismiss with prejudice as the government has not provided a list of witnesses as required by your order. They had multiple days and even were late f...(edited)
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:27 p.m.
Also this is a poorly attempted rewrite of the w/ prejudice dismissal standard in U.S. v. Marion
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:27 p.m.
Holds even less weight now that I know what they tried to do
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-29 06:28 p.m.
Continuance is widely accepted as the method for resolving discovery issues
dero
dero 2025-03-30 11:54 a.m.
Hmm
dero
dero 2025-03-30 11:54 a.m.
Well I guess I goofed this one
dero
dero 2025-03-30 11:54 a.m.
@meowiitten Government moves to dismiss nolle prosequi
dero
dero 2025-03-30 11:55 a.m.
I can throw it on paper if necessary
dero
dero 2025-03-30 11:55 a.m.
We do intend on refiling this. Considering we are so far from the deadline I doubt you would let us refile discovery to include the witnesses we need.
derodero
We do intend on refiling this. Considering we are so far from the deadline I doubt you would let us refile discovery to include the witnesses we need.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-30 12:00 p.m.
A continuance
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-30 12:00 p.m.
I would allow it
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-30 12:00 p.m.
If you’re just going to refile this
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-30 12:01 p.m.
Discovery is not yet over
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-30 12:01 p.m.
Only the deadline for lists
dero
dero 2025-03-30 12:05 p.m.
Oh
dero
dero 2025-03-30 12:06 p.m.
Alright I will include the witness, thank you, Your Honor
derodero
Click to see attachment.
Fish
Fish 2025-03-30 08:42 p.m.
Can i have their personnel files
FishFish
Can i have their personnel files
dero
dero 2025-03-30 08:44 p.m.
No
dero
dero 2025-03-30 08:45 p.m.
Instead of going through motions for that thought I think we should just have a conference on it
derodero
Instead of going through motions for that thought I think we should just have a conference on it
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-30 08:51 p.m.
This is the conference
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-03-30 08:51 p.m.
Address whatever it is that needs to be addressed now
Fish
Fish 2025-03-30 09:02 p.m.
are they both layman or is wemski an expert
Fish
Fish 2025-03-30 09:03 p.m.
nvm
Fish
Fish 2025-03-30 09:03 p.m.
They both layman right
FishFish
They both layman right
dero
dero 2025-03-30 09:05 p.m.
Yes
Fish
Fish 2025-04-03 09:35 p.m.
@meowiitten we have reached a DPA
FishFish
@meowiitten we have reached a DPA
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:36 p.m.
Denied
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:36 p.m.
He is charged with two violent felonies
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:36 p.m.
Do you really think I'm going to accept a DPA?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:49 p.m.
@Fish @dero Are opening statements this Friday at 5:00 PM good?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:49 p.m.
On Discord
dero
dero 2025-04-03 09:55 p.m.
@meowiitten The government moves to dismiss without prejudice
derodero
@meowiitten The government moves to dismiss without prejudice
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:56 p.m.
Why
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:56 p.m.
Tell me why
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
Why
dero
dero 2025-04-03 09:58 p.m.
We've reached an out of court agreement
dero
dero 2025-04-03 09:58 p.m.
Your honor
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:58 p.m.
Also why on earth did you offer me a retraining DPA when you are alleging that he intentionally killed somebody
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:58 p.m.
Do you genuinely think this is right and just
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:58 p.m.
This is whats right
dero
dero 2025-04-03 09:58 p.m.
Because he intentionally misused force
dero
dero 2025-04-03 09:58 p.m.
so he should be retrained
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:58 p.m.
That he intentionally killed and assaulted somebody with a firearm
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:58 p.m.
And you want him retrained
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:59 p.m.
That's all you want
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:59 p.m.
You brought this case so he could be retrained
dero
dero 2025-04-03 09:59 p.m.
Yes your honor
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 09:59 p.m.
Here's what I want you to do
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:00 p.m.
I want you to write me a 4-5 paragraph notice of the state's motion to dismiss explaining the circumstances behind this and explain why I shouldn't, under public interest review, deny your motion
dero
dero 2025-04-03 10:00 p.m.
Your honor, respectfully, you cannot force me to convict somebody
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:00 p.m.
Listen to me when I say this
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:00 p.m.
This isn't your case
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:01 p.m.
You bring this on behalf of the people
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:01 p.m.
That's why public interest review exists
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:01 p.m.
Did you falsify the SDM and ADW charges?
dero
dero 2025-04-03 10:01 p.m.
?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:01 p.m.
I'm asking you—because that's the only reason I can see behind allowing a DPA or granting nolle prosequi
dero
dero 2025-04-03 10:02 p.m.
No I did not falsify the charges
Fish
Fish 2025-04-03 10:03 p.m.
@meowiitten Can u just dismiss
Fish
Fish 2025-04-03 10:03 p.m.
they have stated their unwillingness to prosecute
Fish
Fish 2025-04-03 10:09 p.m.
3 M.S.C. §§ 8401 and 8403 gives broad authority to the Attorney General to have discretion in prosecuting what
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:10 p.m.
Prosecutorial discretion does not override the interests of justice
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:10 p.m.
That discretion is not absolute once charges have been filed
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:11 p.m.
I have an independent duty to protect the public interest
dero
dero 2025-04-03 10:11 p.m.
I dont really know what you think its going to happen if you force me into a trial, honestly
derodero
I dont really know what you think its going to happen if you force me into a trial, honestly
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:13 p.m.
If you believe there is no longer probable cause to proceed, you must state so clearly and provide a legal basis
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:13 p.m.
Here's what I'm going to do
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:14 p.m.
PAPERLESS ORDER: ORDERED that the prosecution shall file, within forty-eight (48) hours, a written notice detailing the basis for its motion to dismiss. This notice must include: (1) a statement of the factual and legal grounds supporting dismissal; (2) the nature and terms of any out-of-court agreement reached with the defendant; (3) an explanation of how dismissal, in light of the charges filed — including, but not limited to, allegations of intentional homicide and assault with a firearm — serves the public interest and comports with the ends of justice. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the scheduling of a hearing to determine whether further proceedings, including sanctions, are appropriate. Signed by Judge sadoimpacto on 4/3/2025.
@dero @Fish
meowiitten pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:48 p.m.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-03 10:15 p.m.
April 5, 2025, at 10:13 PM Eastern Time. That is your due date
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-04 08:29 p.m.
@dero I take it you are working on a draft?
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
@dero I take it you are working on a draft?
dero
dero 2025-04-04 08:41 p.m.
It's optional right
dero
dero 2025-04-04 08:41 p.m.
As in if I don't do it then I don't get the DPA done
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-04 08:42 p.m.
Shall is optional to you?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-04 08:42 p.m.
If you don't do it then I deny your MTD and your DPA
dero
dero 2025-04-04 08:42 p.m.
Okay so its optional..
dero
dero 2025-04-04 08:42 p.m.
got it
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-04 08:42 p.m.
Are you prepared to proceed to trial?
dero
dero 2025-04-04 08:42 p.m.
Something like that
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-04 08:42 p.m.
It's a yes or no
dero
dero 2025-04-04 08:43 p.m.
I was hoping I could put a different prosecutor on this
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-06 11:06 p.m.
I will note that you violated my order @dero
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-06 11:06 p.m.
That will be considered for future reference
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-06 11:07 p.m.
PAPERLESS SCHEDULING ORDER: The above-captioned matter is set for trial asynchronously on 4/7/2025 at 6:00 PM Eastern Time. Signed by Judge sadoimpacto on 4/6/2025.
@dero @Fish
meowiitten pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:48 p.m.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-06 11:08 p.m.
@meowiitten What about my requests
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-06 11:08 p.m.
What did you ask for
Fish
Fish 2025-04-06 11:08 p.m.
that the government examine and hand over personnel files for officers of the gov't
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-06 11:08 p.m.
For their witnesses?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-06 11:08 p.m.
ye
FishFish
ye
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-06 11:10 p.m.
@dero
FishFish
that the government examine and hand over personnel files for officers of the gov't
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-06 11:11 p.m.
I'd recommend just looking on the spreadsheet of their respective departments
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-06 11:12 p.m.
I'm personally unaware of a single agency that keeps individual files
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-06 11:12 p.m.
You could also check the logs channel that they have in their Discords
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
I'd recommend just looking on the spreadsheet of their respective departments
Fish
Fish 2025-04-06 11:14 p.m.
well there could be IA cases for the officers and other related documents and files that they may have signed
dero
dero 2025-04-06 11:14 p.m.
I will respond in about 30-45 mins
FishFish
well there could be IA cases for the officers and other related documents and files that they may have signed
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-06 11:15 p.m.
They usually get mad as hell when you DM them but you could try DMing the IA chiefs of those agencies
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
They usually get mad as hell when you DM them but you could try DMing the IA chiefs of those agencies
Fish
Fish 2025-04-06 11:16 p.m.
i doubt that they would give that information freely, and i think it's the government's job to go get them anyway
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-06 11:17 p.m.
It is but it's probably faster if you do it yourself
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-06 11:17 p.m.
If the IA refuses to disclose something then you subpoena it
dero
dero 2025-04-07 10:45 a.m.
@meowiitten Okay we think the employment records from the departments for lay witnesses are irrelevant
derodero
@meowiitten Okay we think the employment records from the departments for lay witnesses are irrelevant
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:45 a.m.
Send it here and I’ll determine if it’s Brady material or not
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
Send it here and I’ll determine if it’s Brady material or not
dero
dero 2025-04-07 10:46 a.m.
as in sending the employment records?
derodero
as in sending the employment records?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:47 a.m.
Send it here yes
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
Send it here yes
dero
dero 2025-04-07 10:50 a.m.
i mean at that point we are just disclosing them
dero
dero 2025-04-07 10:50 a.m.
to the defense
dero
dero 2025-04-07 10:50 a.m.
:/
dero
dero 2025-04-07 10:50 a.m.
i dont believe there would be anything harmful but to get these records all together would take a little longer
dero
dero 2025-04-07 10:51 a.m.
both officers are rather upstanding
dero
dero 2025-04-07 10:51 a.m.
and any punishments the employees have ever been issued are located on the public database so its all public record
sadoimpactosadoimpacto used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-07 10:01 p.m.
Case Modified
@meowiitten has added @xolaaz to the case channel.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:01 p.m.
@xolaaz
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:01 p.m.
Maybe you can tell me what is going on with this case
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:02 p.m.
Hi all
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
Maybe you can tell me what is going on with this case
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:03 p.m.
ill be going with this case
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:03 p.m.
no dpa's no out of court room talks
xolaazxolaaz
ill be going with this case
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:03 p.m.
through with this case*
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:03 p.m.
im going into trial with hopes to secure a conviction
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:03 p.m.
Did you write opening statements?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:03 p.m.
where are we at currently
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:04 p.m.
if its opening statements i can probably have it in by tonight after i pick someone up
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:04 p.m.
Dero was supposed to give opening statements at 6:00 PM EST today
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:04 p.m.
But I'll give you 24 hours if you need to
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:04 p.m.
okay i can have it in in probably the next 3-4 hours
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:04 p.m.
Ok perfect
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:04 p.m.
i saw earlier there were disclosure talks
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:04 p.m.
anything i need to be aware of?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:04 p.m.
or anything i need to produce
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:05 p.m.
The defense wanted employment records but Dero wouldn't send them here. They're likely worthless for impeachment material but the defense wants them(edited)
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:05 p.m.
employment records are self authenticating i thought
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:06 p.m.
we dont need to produce them, by law all departments are required to maintain employment actions
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:06 p.m.
they are public material
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:07 p.m.
4 M.S.C. 5 - 5101 (d)
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:07 p.m.
Authentication isn't relevant yet; I'm pretty sure the defense meant confidential materials like IA disciplinary reports that sometimes get swept under the rug, unfortunately
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:08 p.m.
Is that something he can just find on the departmental spreadsheets
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:08 p.m.
why would we need to discuss IA disciplinary reports
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:08 p.m.
those are departmental confidential
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:08 p.m.
Because it's impeachment material for witnesses
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-07 10:08 p.m.
The State's witnesses
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-07 10:08 p.m.
im about to leave ill be back in like 30 minutes and ill sort everything
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:00 a.m.
@meowiitten
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:01 a.m.
would the court grant leave for the state to amend it's criminal information and affidavit
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:01 a.m.
I have taken over as counselor and would like to change the contents of the charging document
xolaazxolaaz
would the court grant leave for the state to amend it's criminal information and affidavit
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-08 12:10 a.m.
No
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:13 a.m.
ok we go forward then
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:14 a.m.
@meowiitten can I get an official notice of what i need to produce
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:14 a.m.
ill just send the database
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:14 a.m.
they are supposed to have all disciplinary actions logged on their
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:16 a.m.
im confused what i need to produce
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:16 a.m.
he hasnt been terminated
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:16 a.m.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:16 a.m.
hes on AL for doj order because of this prosecution
xolaazxolaaz
Click to see attachment.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-08 12:17 a.m.
He wanted it for the witnesses
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-08 12:17 a.m.
Not the defendant
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
He wanted it for the witnesses
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:20 a.m.
theres been no disciplinary action towards him as a result of this incident
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 12:20 a.m.
the only action he's had was a doj administered administrative leave
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-08 02:17 p.m.
@Fish Are you satisfied
xolaazxolaaz
theres been no disciplinary action towards him as a result of this incident
Fish
Fish 2025-04-08 02:41 p.m.
you are still referring to the defendant
Fish
Fish 2025-04-08 02:41 p.m.
we are talking about your two witnesses
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 02:49 p.m.
I’ll reply when I’m out of school
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 02:50 p.m.
Bad argument
Fish
Fish 2025-04-08 02:56 p.m.
huh
FishFish
we are talking about your two witnesses
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 05:30 p.m.
the departmental action of the state's witnesses has nothing to do with this case
Fish
Fish 2025-04-08 05:30 p.m.
It is impeachment material, as the judge has already stated.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-08 05:30 p.m.
He already told you to hand it over so I don't know what you are getting at
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 05:30 p.m.
can you form a full argument with that
Fish
Fish 2025-04-08 05:30 p.m.
The judge already told you to give it
Fish
Fish 2025-04-08 05:31 p.m.
Why are you trying to make this harder
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 05:31 p.m.
ok 1sec
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 05:32 p.m.
like i stated before, there's no departmental history with either of my witnesses
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 05:32 p.m.
moreover the database by law is supposed to be updated, so any departmental actions are on the spreadsheet
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 05:33 p.m.
@meowiitten is the court satisfied
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-08 05:36 p.m.
I'd say
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-08 05:36 p.m.
@xolaaz Can you give opening statements now?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 05:36 p.m.
yea i can submit it in like less then 10 min
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 05:45 p.m.
@meowiitten
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 05:45 p.m.
state opening --
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-08 05:45 p.m.
Ok
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-08 05:45 p.m.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 05:45 p.m.
We define integrity as, “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles”. We place moral and ethical principles into our society today to help differentiate the right from wrong. What happens when the people of our society, under those same principles, don’t follow them? World anarchy? Violations of every single ethical principle? More specifically, human calamity? Today, I bring forth a case that demonstrates the ill acts of the defendant, that violates our standards of one another, the laws and rules set in place brings the question of legality to the defendant’s actions.

Because, as the evidence will show, you can clearly see how the defendant’s actions in this incident not only violate nearly every ethical principle, but, our sacred laws. Throughout this case, you will be given undeniable facts about not only how the defendant took a life, but the unethical nature of this incident. Your honor, it’s very important that you examine the facts of this case very closely and determine how they relate to the charges the state brings today. In order to do that, you must understand the elements we have to prove.

First, for Second-Degree Murder, we must show you how the defendant unlawfully took the life of another individual, with intent to kill. Secondly, for Assault with a Deadly Weapon, we must show you how the defendant unlawfully assaulted another person with an object that is capable of severe harm. Your honor, at the end of our case, you will see that the evidence proves every single element undoubtedly. When we rest our case, there will be no reasonable doubt about what happened.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 05:45 p.m.
There will be no reasonable doubt about the intent of the defendant, and finally your honor, there will be no reasonable doubt, that Mr. VinnieMC2156 broke a promise to the State of Mayflower, to this Court, and to the people he swore to protect.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-08 05:46 p.m.
Is that all? @xolaaz
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-08 05:46 p.m.
we yield our opening statement your honor
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-08 05:46 p.m.
Go ahead @Fish
Fish
Fish 2025-04-08 06:04 p.m.
The burden to prove all of the allegations is on the prosecution. They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. They will attempt to paint a picture that this Court must reject. I truly urge this Court to consider all of the facts here, and not just the ones that the prosecution presents. We will show, at the end of this trial, that they have not met their burden. Their prosecution is tainted and another one of the State's witch hunts to go after every single law enforcement officer they can. We will show this Court that the defendant reasonably believed they were acting in self-defense and was under duress.

At the end, I am confident that this Court will render a verdict of not guilty.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-08 08:09 p.m.
Your first witness? @xolaaz
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-09 07:30 p.m.
Once I get home from work
Fish
Fish 2025-04-10 07:13 a.m.
12 hours later…
Fish
Fish 2025-04-10 07:14 a.m.
@meowiitten We move to dismiss for want of prosecution
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-10 08:36 a.m.
Crazy work 12 hours later
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-10 08:36 a.m.
Cases have prolonged for longer
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-10 08:36 a.m.
Petty dismissal motion
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-10 08:37 a.m.
I’ll present my witnesses today
FishFish
@meowiitten We move to dismiss for want of prosecution
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-10 10:17 a.m.
Denied
xolaazxolaaz
I’ll present my witnesses today
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-10 10:17 a.m.
You have until 11:00 PM Eastern Time
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
You have until 11:00 PM Eastern Time
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-10 09:51 p.m.
calling amitbx to testify first
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-10 09:52 p.m.
@.
sadoimpactosadoimpacto used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-10 09:52 p.m.
Case Modified
@meowiitten has added @. to the case channel.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-10 09:52 p.m.
@. Please change your name sir
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-10 09:52 p.m.
@. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-10 09:53 p.m.
your honor is timezone is opposite to ours so i think we'll need to work something out like indefinite discord
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-10 09:53 p.m.
his*
xolaazxolaaz
your honor is timezone is opposite to ours so i think we'll need to work something out like indefinite discord
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-10 09:57 p.m.
That's already what's happening
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-10 09:57 p.m.
Ok! :🙂:
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
@. Please change your name sir
.
. 2025-04-11 01:13 a.m.
I can’t change my username in this discord and I’m not in favor of changing my alias on discord for the court case.
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
@. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
.
. 2025-04-11 01:13 a.m.
Non-religious please
..
Non-religious please
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-11 01:13 a.m.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
.
. 2025-04-11 01:13 a.m.
Yes, I do.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-11 01:14 a.m.
@xolaaz Please go ahead
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-11 10:27 a.m.
After school
Fish
Fish 2025-04-11 05:48 p.m.
@meowiitten Can we get some type of time limit
Fish
Fish 2025-04-11 05:48 p.m.
As to how long of no questions it is assumed that questioning is yielded
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-11 05:49 p.m.
24 hours
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-12 12:07 a.m.
@.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-12 12:07 a.m.
@meowiitten
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-12 12:07 a.m.
im going to send some questions on top of each other and let the witness reply to them
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-12 12:14 a.m.
all for amit -
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-12 12:14 a.m.
name?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-12 12:14 a.m.
are you a resident?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-12 12:16 a.m.
were you present in medford on march 2nd, 2025?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-12 12:16 a.m.
Where in medford?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-12 12:20 a.m.
Did you have any contact with Vinniemc2165 while in medford that day?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-12 12:20 a.m.
ill leave it at that for now dont want to bombard
xolaazxolaaz
name?
.
. 2025-04-12 01:57 a.m.
AmitBX
xolaazxolaaz
are you a resident?
.
. 2025-04-12 01:57 a.m.
Yes
xolaazxolaaz
were you present in medford on march 2nd, 2025?
.
. 2025-04-12 01:57 a.m.
Yes
xolaazxolaaz
Where in medford?
.
. 2025-04-12 01:58 a.m.
Well originally me and my partner wemski were going to the Sheriff’s Office located in Medford to restock on ammunition as we have been running low after some previous shootouts.
xolaazxolaaz
Did you have any contact with Vinniemc2165 while in medford that day?
.
. 2025-04-12 02:00 a.m.
Define contact?

I did not make any physical contact with Vinnie or any contact prior to the altercation at all, but I did get lit up and killed by Vinnie right at the Sheriff’s Office station when I was driving in with emergency lights activated in my civilian police car.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-12 09:09 a.m.
I object to all of the questions, compound
Fish
Fish 2025-04-12 09:13 a.m.
and move to strike the answers
.
. 2025-04-12 09:54 a.m.
Dude cannot expect me to keep answering and then striking my answers
Fish
Fish 2025-04-12 10:29 a.m.
I also ask the Court to order the witness to not talk out of turn. His purpose here is to testify, not to argue with counsel.
FishFish
I object to all of the questions, compound
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-12 11:06 a.m.
Overruled you can make to strike individual questions
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
Overruled you can make to strike individual questions
Fish
Fish 2025-04-12 11:09 a.m.
So you are going to allow him to ask multiple questions at the same time?
FishFish
So you are going to allow him to ask multiple questions at the same time?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-12 11:23 a.m.
He’s responding to the questions individually
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-12 11:23 a.m.
As long as he keeps doing that it’s fine
Fish
Fish 2025-04-12 11:28 a.m.
okay
xolaazxolaaz
Did you have any contact with Vinniemc2165 while in medford that day?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-12 11:28 a.m.
We object to this question then as vague
..
Define contact? I did not make any physical contact with Vinnie or any contact prior to the altercation at all, but I did get lit up and killed by Vinnie right at the Sheriff’s O...
Fish
Fish 2025-04-12 11:28 a.m.
and the second half of the answer as non responsive
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-12 11:30 a.m.
Overruled
.
. 2025-04-12 11:32 a.m.
I'd like to make the court and counsel aware of my availability later tonight for questioning at around 3 PM EST - 5 PM EST @xolaaz
.
. 2025-04-12 11:32 a.m.
Tonight for me*
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 02:00 a.m.
sorry was out all day
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 02:07 a.m.
Are you a member of law enforcement in clark county? @.
xolaazxolaaz
Are you a member of law enforcement in clark county? @.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-13 03:06 a.m.
If this is going to be a recurring thing please just do the same thing you did before with the row of questions one by one
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-13 03:06 a.m.
And he can reply to each one by one
xolaazxolaaz
Are you a member of law enforcement in clark county? @.
.
. 2025-04-13 03:08 a.m.
Yes
.
. 2025-04-13 03:09 a.m.
I’m a Captain of the Administration Services Bureau in MSP and oversee, in part, the Internal Affairs Division, State Police Academy Division and Public Relations Unit
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 04:15 a.m.
moves to admit exhibit a of prosecutions discovery
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 04:21 a.m.
Going to bed if there’s no objections to my admitting then I’ll proceed
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 04:22 a.m.
After I wake up
xolaazxolaaz
moves to admit exhibit a of prosecutions discovery
Fish
Fish 2025-04-13 08:25 a.m.
I object. You’ve done nothing to authenticate the exhibit.
FishFish
I object. You’ve done nothing to authenticate the exhibit.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 08:29 a.m.
We’ve established he was at the sheriffs office on march 2nd,
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 08:29 a.m.
Had contact with the defendant
Fish
Fish 2025-04-13 08:30 a.m.
That’s not authenticating an exhibit
Fish
Fish 2025-04-13 08:31 a.m.
:😭:
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 09:51 a.m.
Authenticating an exhibit
Fish
Fish 2025-04-13 09:59 a.m.
You have to authenticate something before you admit it
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 10:25 a.m.
@.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 10:26 a.m.
Did you record a video of your encounter with vinniemc2165 on march 2nd at the sheriffs office
.
. 2025-04-13 10:30 a.m.
Yeah
.
. 2025-04-13 10:30 a.m.
The video literally has my name does it not
.
. 2025-04-13 10:30 a.m.
There were 2 videos recorded
.
. 2025-04-13 10:30 a.m.
One by my partner wemski and one by myself
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 10:31 a.m.
@meowiitten can we get a ruling so I can move on
xolaazxolaaz
@meowiitten can we get a ruling so I can move on
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 10:33 a.m.
The affidavit of probable cause also establishes that exhibit a is his video
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 10:33 a.m.
He can testify to it
xolaazxolaaz
@meowiitten can we get a ruling so I can move on
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-13 11:46 a.m.
Ask if he recognizes the exhibit and then it can be admitted
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 01:03 p.m.
@. Hi witness do you recognize exhibit a
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 01:04 p.m.
This video right here
.
. 2025-04-13 01:04 p.m.
I uploaded the exhibit so yes?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 01:04 p.m.
Ok
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 01:04 p.m.
@meowiitten
.
. 2025-04-13 01:04 p.m.
That is my youtube channel
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-13 01:04 p.m.
Move to admit exhibit a
.
. 2025-04-13 01:04 p.m.
for roblox larp
xolaazxolaaz
Move to admit exhibit a
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-13 01:15 p.m.
Admitted
Fish
Fish 2025-04-13 01:54 p.m.
@meowiitten I object because the witness has not testified as to the exhibit being unmodified or unaltered.(edited)
FishFish
@meowiitten I object because the witness has not testified as to the exhibit being unmodified or unaltered.(edited)
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-13 01:54 p.m.
Overruled
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
24 hours
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 01:58 p.m.
@meowiitten I assume direct examination of the witness is yielded consistent with your previous directive here?
FishFish
@meowiitten I assume direct examination of the witness is yielded consistent with your previous directive here?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 02:00 p.m.
Yeah
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 02:00 p.m.
You can go ahead and cross
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 02:05 p.m.
@meowiitten We have no questions.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 02:06 p.m.
We can move on
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 02:06 p.m.
@Fish Do you have a witness to call?
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
@Fish Do you have a witness to call?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 02:06 p.m.
I thought the State had another witness no?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 02:06 p.m.
I'm asking you
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 02:06 p.m.
It usually goes State's Witness, D's Witness, and so on
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 02:07 p.m.
I have some of my own quesitons to ask this witness
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 02:07 p.m.
I'm pretty sure we're only supposed to go when the proseuction rests their case in chief
xolaazxolaaz
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 02:26 p.m.
@Fish @xolaaz I will be conducting my own direct examination of the witness. At any time, a party may object to a question or a line of questioning—I will rule on said objection. Once I have ruled on an objection, do not continue speaking. After I am finished with my examination, either party may take the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

I will ask my questions in a list, since I am aware that the witness has time constraints.

@. As it relates to the admission of Exhibit A, where we just left off:
1. Just to circle back, where were you employed at the time of Exhibit A's posted date—March 2, 2025?
2. Can you describe what is shown in Exhibit A from your perspective?
3. Between 0:13, what is the building that you entered the garage of?
4. What was your business there?
5. Was your vehicle marked as law enforcement?
6. How did you come to recognize the other individual in the video as the defendant—VinnieMC2165?
7. What, if anything, did you observe about the defendant’s actions in the video?
8. Were there any prior interactions between you and the defendant before this incident?

Please respond one-by-one in list order to each corresponding question, for example:
1. Answer ...
2. Answer ...
3. Answer ...
4. Answer ...
5. Answer ...
6. Answer ...
7. Answer ...
8. Answer ...
.
. 2025-04-14 02:30 p.m.
1. I was, and subsequently still am, employed at the Mayflower State Police on March 2nd 2025.
.
. 2025-04-14 02:33 p.m.
2. Exhibit A shows me driving a green civilian vehicle with ELS attachments (I dont know the model) with my partner wemski. Both me and wemski were in vc at the time Exhibit A has taken place (as can be witnessed by the other Exhibit submitted by wemski and me being confused on to what just happened).

My ELS were on as me and wemski were responding to a call (Can't remember what call now it was a month ago) and we were running low on ammunition and decided to go to the Sheriff's Office to restock as the closest police station in the area we were at.

Upon driving into the Sheriff's Office garage doors with my ELS on (ELS were present on BOTH sides of the vehicle) I was shot and killed by the Sheriff's Deputy VinnieMC2165.
.
. 2025-04-14 02:34 p.m.
3. Clark County Sheriff's Office Station.
.
. 2025-04-14 02:34 p.m.
4. As explained previously I was driving to restock on ammunition as I have been running low and it was the closest police station nearby.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 02:34 p.m.
@meowiitten I think this line of questioning is improper. It seems you are trying to fill in the gaps that the prosecution left. If we're basing this off of Rule 614 (since I don't think there is a local rule governing questioning witnesses), you should be taking a neutral position and only one to clarify things, not to bolster the prosecution's case or act as an advocate for them which it seems you are doing here.
.
. 2025-04-14 02:35 p.m.
5. Define marked. It was a civilian vehicle, however, ELS was present both on the back side of the car and on the front side. And as apparent by my Exhibit both were on at the time of the incident.
.
. 2025-04-14 02:35 p.m.
6. I came to recognize the defendant as VinnieMC2165 as my partner wemski hasn't been killed by the Defendant and I asked him in vc to go ahead and obtain the username of the individual.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 02:36 p.m.
@. Can you stop talking until he's ruled on my objection
.
. 2025-04-14 02:37 p.m.
I'm answering his questions first
.
. 2025-04-14 02:37 p.m.
Then he can decide what he wants to do with them
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 02:37 p.m.
You're not supposed to answer when there's an objection
.
. 2025-04-14 02:37 p.m.
Bro I was in the middle if you stop me now I'm not doing this till at least 24 hours
.
. 2025-04-14 02:38 p.m.
Be my guest
.
. 2025-04-14 02:38 p.m.
See you in a day
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
Yeah
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 02:58 p.m.
For what
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 02:58 p.m.
I have been busy all day
FishFish
@meowiitten I think this line of questioning is improper. It seems you are trying to fill in the gaps that the prosecution left. If we're basing this off of Rule 614 (sin...
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 02:58 p.m.
Question 1 relates to this line of questioning: https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1350170013432021022/1360468209576443954

Question 2-8 relate to this: https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1350170013432021022/1361024040969568487

The general prohibition under Rule 614 of acting as an "advocate" is to avoid tainting a jury, and I am not acting as the "advocate" here. This is a bench trial, where I am the fact-finder. You will have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, which I have extended to you.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 02:58 p.m.
There have been cases where the fitness doesn’t go questioned for at least 4 weeks
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 02:59 p.m.
But you have an issue with a day or two
xolaazxolaaz
For what
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 02:59 p.m.
You have to tell me that(edited)
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 02:59 p.m.
You disappeared
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 02:59 p.m.
There hasn’t been anything saying I had a deadline
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 02:59 p.m.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:00 p.m.
.
. 2025-04-14 03:00 p.m.
Ughh do I continue or what
.
. 2025-04-14 03:00 p.m.
It will still be a while until I answer
.
. 2025-04-14 03:00 p.m.
Thanks to James
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:00 p.m.
@Fish @xolaaz Would anyone like to take a cross examination?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:06 p.m.
@Fish @xolaaz Would anyone like to take a cross examination?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:06 p.m.
If not, then @xolaaz can call his next witness
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
Question 1 relates to this line of questioning: https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1350170013432021022/1360468209576443954 Question 2-8 relate to this: https://disco...
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 03:07 p.m.
You still cannot build their case and have to act neutral. You are literally plugging the holes in their examination, lifting the burden off of them
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:07 p.m.
Okay buddy whatever you say
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:07 p.m.
I told you not to argue
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:08 p.m.
You are clearly not taking advantage of the opportunity to cross-examine if you so disagree with my line of questioning which was identifiably linked to the prosecution's direct-examination
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 03:09 p.m.
He didn't finish answering the questions
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:09 p.m.
I'll yield the final two questions as non-responsive
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
@Fish @xolaaz Would anyone like to take a cross examination?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:10 p.m.
@Fish Yes or no???
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 03:11 p.m.
Yes
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 03:11 p.m.
Can i start
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:13 p.m.
Yes
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 03:14 p.m.
@. So you didn't actually see who the person was in game, correct?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:50 p.m.
@meowiitten
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:50 p.m.
Gonna ask for reconsideration on this
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:51 p.m.
I’ve been busy with personal stuff
xolaazxolaaz
Gonna ask for reconsideration on this
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:51 p.m.
You're free to build your case again on cross or just ask for re-direct
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:51 p.m.
What's the point of reconsideration
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:51 p.m.
So I can go back and finish my direct
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:51 p.m.
This is so stupid
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:52 p.m.
Why are we basing off little time frames
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:52 p.m.
The witness literally takes a day to almost respond
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:52 p.m.
I base it off of how long it takes you to ask the next question
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:52 p.m.
Not his response
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:52 p.m.
If he takes 72 hours fine
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:52 p.m.
I’m waiting for objections
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:53 p.m.
I admitted evidence and waiting for an objection
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:53 p.m.
Then I waited to ask
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:53 p.m.
Why would you wait for an objection
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:53 p.m.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:53 p.m.
Why would I ask questions about admitted evidence then have them all objected too
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:53 p.m.
Then restart
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:53 p.m.
You do paper rulings
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:53 p.m.
Ur job
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
I’m not wasting my time to ask the same stuff
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
You can take cross or ask for re-direct
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
I'm not letting you apce back
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
pace*
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
You can take cross after he takes cross or just go straight to re-direct
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
Yeah sorry everybody for taking 1 day of my life
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
Yes, sorry you. You never told anyone
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
That's 100% your fault
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
Stupid Time frames
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
That you approved
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
The whole video is admitted
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
The witness is across the earth
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 03:54 p.m.
I can admit the entire video
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
@Fish Yes or no???
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 03:59 p.m.
I mean this is pacing back is it not
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 04:00 p.m.
You asked him previously if he wanted to cross he said no questions and moved on
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 04:00 p.m.
Now we’re asking again
FishFish
@. So you didn't actually see who the person was in game, correct?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:00 p.m.
This is the start of his cross
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:00 p.m.
But because you interrupted
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:00 p.m.
He’s gonna have to state the question again
FishFish
@meowiitten We have no questions.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 04:00 p.m.
Hello
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 04:01 p.m.
Ok great let’s keep it pushing guys
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:04 p.m.
Stop talking
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:16 p.m.
@. So you didn't actually see who the person was in game, correct?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:16 p.m.
Yes or no(edited)
FishFish
He didn't finish answering the questions
.
. 2025-04-14 04:27 p.m.
DUDE YOU CUT ME OFF
FishFish
@. So you didn't actually see who the person was in game, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 04:31 p.m.
I did I actually came back to the Sheriff's Office after vinniemc2165 directed me on the radio after being confronted by witness wemski and said he apologizes
.
. 2025-04-14 04:31 p.m.
He wanted to talk to me in person
..
I did I actually came back to the Sheriff's Office after vinniemc2165 directed me on the radio after being confronted by witness wemski and said he apologizes
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:35 p.m.
But you never actually saw the name of the person, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 04:35 p.m.
In the video after I died? No
.
. 2025-04-14 04:35 p.m.
But there's a whole different exhibit
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:36 p.m.
@meowiitten I move to strike everything other than "No" as non responsive
.
. 2025-04-14 04:38 p.m.
Yes, in the Exhibit I sent his username is not visible.
.
. 2025-04-14 04:38 p.m.
Here is the exhibit by my beloved @w.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:38 p.m.
...
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:38 p.m.
Can you stop
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:39 p.m.
Move to strike all of that as no question was pending
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:40 p.m.
And I ask the Court to issue a stern warning to the witness to only answer what he is asked and nothing more. Him yelling at me "DUDE YOU CUT ME OFF" and continuing to talk is improper.
FishFish
@meowiitten I move to strike everything other than "No" as non responsive
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:40 p.m.
You want to strike the answer to your own question?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:41 p.m.
Denied
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
Denied
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:43 p.m.
He sent a video in the channel without any question pending
FishFish
He sent a video in the channel without any question pending
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 04:45 p.m.
Maybe he needs to have quick access to the video
xolaazxolaaz
Maybe he needs to have quick access to the video
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:45 p.m.
It's not even the same video that was admitted, what are you talking about?(edited)
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 04:45 p.m.
I mean it’s public access
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 04:46 p.m.
Ask him why he posted it
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:47 p.m.
@meowiitten Can I get a ruling on you striking the unsolicited introduction of unadmitted evidence & the commentary that the witness gave, none of which was a response to my actual question(edited)
FishFish
@meowiitten Can I get a ruling on you striking the unsolicited introduction of unadmitted evidence & the commentary that the witness gave, none of which was a response to...(edited)
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:50 p.m.
I won’t strike it. What I can do is allow some kind of recess so that you both can review the exhibit. However, it seems to just confirm what we already have been made aware of through his testimony. It seems relevant, and it has a great probative value, so I’m against striking
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:51 p.m.
Also, you did open the door to this
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:51 p.m.
This is also kind of on you
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:51 p.m.
This came in because of your line of questioning
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:51 p.m.
I asked him whether he had personal knowledge of who the person was, not referring to another exhibit
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:52 p.m.
And even then, I think you opening this whole thing up by attempting to be a second prosecutor was wholly improper
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:52 p.m.
Here we go again
FishFish
I asked him whether he had personal knowledge of who the person was, not referring to another exhibit
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:53 p.m.
He offered it up upon your line of questioning
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:53 p.m.
You opened the door
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 04:53 p.m.
Are you going to continue or do you need a recess?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 04:56 p.m.
@. You don't know what the call was about on March 2nd, correct?
FishFish
@. You don't know what the call was about on March 2nd, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:03 p.m.
What?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:03 p.m.
I need you to be specific
.
. 2025-04-14 05:03 p.m.
"the call"
.
. 2025-04-14 05:03 p.m.
what call
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:04 p.m.
"My ELS were on as me and wemski were responding to a call "
.
. 2025-04-14 05:04 p.m.
No I don't remember what call it was I just remember it was urgent
.
. 2025-04-14 05:04 p.m.
Hence the use of the ELS
.
. 2025-04-14 05:04 p.m.
And restock of ammunition
..
No I don't remember what call it was I just remember it was urgent
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:06 p.m.
So your partner told you the identity of the person, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:07 p.m.
Yeah it's visible on his recording
.
. 2025-04-14 05:07 p.m.
I kind of did ask him to tell me who it was
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:08 p.m.
Okay, regarding your vehicle
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:08 p.m.
You said you were in a civilian vehicle, correct? @.
.
. 2025-04-14 05:08 p.m.
I was yeah
..
I was yeah
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:08 p.m.
But civilian vehicles do not have emergency lights, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:08 p.m.
That one did
.
. 2025-04-14 05:08 p.m.
I added them on it
.
. 2025-04-14 05:08 p.m.
Do civilian vehicles have emergency lights by default? no.
.
. 2025-04-14 05:09 p.m.
Did I add ELS on it yes
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:09 p.m.
So the vehicle was not department-issued, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:09 p.m.
No
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:10 p.m.
But you just told me it was a civilian vehicle?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:10 p.m.
What..?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:10 p.m.
No as in it is department issued or isn't
.
. 2025-04-14 05:10 p.m.
Yes, IT WAS NOT DEPARTMENT ISSUED.
.
. 2025-04-14 05:11 p.m.
It is not a vehicle that the department issues.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:11 p.m.
So it is not a standard vehicle, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:11 p.m.
Define standard vehicle
.
. 2025-04-14 05:11 p.m.
It isn't a vehicle the department issues
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:12 p.m.
Okay let me clarify
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:12 p.m.
It's a civilian vehicle modified to have emergency lights, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:12 p.m.
If you consider adding ploppable lights and sirens as a modification, yes.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:13 p.m.
And to add on, this vehicle would not have the same markings/features/recognitions that a standard police vehicle would have, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:14 p.m.
No, because it was an unmarked vehicle. Pretty sure once a vehicle has emergency lights and audible sirens added on to it, then it becomes a police car. We call it civilian vehicle because it is a vehicle not issued by the department normally and is usually driven by civilians, but it was modified to have audible sirens and lights to become a police car that is an unmarked police car.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:14 p.m.
That's not what I'm asking you
.
. 2025-04-14 05:15 p.m.
You're being vague
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:15 p.m.
I'm asking you if it would have the same markings or features or recognitions that a standard police vehicle would have
.
. 2025-04-14 05:16 p.m.
A standard vehicle the police issues is a police car with a lightbar, markings features and recognitions. If you're hinting it is an unmarked vehicle because it does have those then you would be correct. Yes.
.
. 2025-04-14 05:16 p.m.
A standard vehicle could also be considered the "Unmarked Cala Evora" the department issues in the spawner
.
. 2025-04-14 05:16 p.m.
That's why I asked you define standard
..
A standard vehicle the police issues is a police car with a lightbar, markings features and recognitions. If you're hinting it is an unmarked vehicle because it does have those the...
.
. 2025-04-14 05:16 p.m.
Meant to say doesn't*
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:17 p.m.
@. It was night time, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:17 p.m.
Yes
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:18 p.m.
So considering it being night time, wouldn't it be fair to say that this vehicle you were driving looks more like an civilian car than a police vehicle?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:18 p.m.
No...?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:18 p.m.
The lights were active
.
. 2025-04-14 05:18 p.m.
The ELS was active
.
. 2025-04-14 05:19 p.m.
They are quite bright
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:19 p.m.
The lights are extremely small, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:19 p.m.
Not really they are pretty normal
.
. 2025-04-14 05:19 p.m.
It isn't your usual lightbar on the car that is clearly visible
.
. 2025-04-14 05:19 p.m.
But it is nontheless visible if you pay a bit of attention
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:20 p.m.
@. You weren't wearing a department-issued uniform that day, were you?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:20 p.m.
No I wasn't. I was in business-casual attire
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:20 p.m.
So you didn't have any police identifying marks on you, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:20 p.m.
I had a belt badge
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:20 p.m.
You were sitting in the driver seat of your car, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:20 p.m.
That is stanard to use with plain clothing
.
. 2025-04-14 05:21 p.m.
Yes I was driving it
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:21 p.m.
So your belt badge would have then been covered up and impossible to see, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:21 p.m.
Yes because it is on my waist
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:22 p.m.
And you were driving the car extremely fast into the garage, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:22 p.m.
No???
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:22 p.m.
You don't think 30 miles an hour is fast for entering a garage?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:22 p.m.
NO?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:22 p.m.
That is normal speeds
.
. 2025-04-14 05:23 p.m.
The lowest posted speed on Clark County is 30 mph
.
. 2025-04-14 05:23 p.m.
That is very standard
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:23 p.m.
Okay. Direct yourself to 0:14 of the video. I am looking at the emergency lights of the vehicle on the backside. You would not say that is small compared to the rest of the car?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:24 p.m.
No I would not
.
. 2025-04-14 05:24 p.m.
Wouldn't you say they are quite bright at night?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:24 p.m.
Pretty hard to miss too since it is a different color of the car
.
. 2025-04-14 05:24 p.m.
You have white on red with a green car
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:25 p.m.
@. You came in close proximity to the defendant while driving into the garage, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:25 p.m.
I did not
.
. 2025-04-14 05:25 p.m.
The defendant wasn't even visible
.
. 2025-04-14 05:25 p.m.
He was waiting for me with his rifle equipped behind the door
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:25 p.m.
So you did not see him at all then, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:26 p.m.
I did notice him when I saw the garage doors as I prepared to drive in but I lost contact with him as he moved away from the doors towards the other closed door
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:27 p.m.
But you just told me he wasn't even visible. Which is it?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:27 p.m.
He wasn't visible as he moved away from the open door
.
. 2025-04-14 05:27 p.m.
Which I then lost visibly with him
.
. 2025-04-14 05:28 p.m.
You hinted I drove towards him in close proximity
.
. 2025-04-14 05:28 p.m.
Which by the time he disappeared from my frames
.
. 2025-04-14 05:28 p.m.
I couldn't see him anymore
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:30 p.m.
Isn't it true that entering a garage at 30 MPH could be considered unusually fast for a civilian vehicle?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:30 p.m.
No it's not
.
. 2025-04-14 05:30 p.m.
And we've been over the fact it is an unmarked police car
.
. 2025-04-14 05:30 p.m.
It was equipped with els and audibles
.
. 2025-04-14 05:31 p.m.
and the els were active
.
. 2025-04-14 05:31 p.m.
Just because it isn't a stanard issued vehicle by the department in the spawners does not make it a normal civilian vehicle without any modifications making it a police car
.
. 2025-04-14 05:31 p.m.
It was clearly no longer a normal civilian car
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:34 p.m.
You said that you did not come in close proximity to the defendant. You then told me that he was behind the door.

If the defendant was behind the door, doesn't that suggest you may have gotten closer to him than you initially indicated?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:36 p.m.
Does the defendant taking a defensive position with a rifle not indicate he meant to cause harm to whoever it was driving in regardless of if they are police or not?

I didn't come in close proximity to the defendant to cause any immediate concern. When you ask me did I come in close proximity to someone with my car I imagine that I drive extremely close to them nearly touching their person. If you look at 0:14 there's a fine distance between my car and the defendant and even a door that separates my car potentially ever making contact with him.
.
. 2025-04-14 05:36 p.m.
So no.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:37 p.m.
Earlier you called your car a civlian car, now you're saying it is an unmarked police vehicle. Which is it?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:39 p.m.
Here:

It's called a civilian car because it is a car that can be purchased at the car dealership by normal civilians and isn't a car that the department offers or a car that comes pre-equipped with audibles and lights on it or a color that you cannot change. It is different than your standard issued police car.

It is by definition an unmarked police car because it has emergency lights equipped and audible sirens.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:41 p.m.
You testified that you did not come in close proximity to the defendant. So considering you had no visible police identification on your person, he would have no idea who was driving in the garage, correct?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:41 p.m.
Again no...
.
. 2025-04-14 05:41 p.m.
The car had emergency lights
.
. 2025-04-14 05:41 p.m.
They were active
.
. 2025-04-14 05:41 p.m.
Is that not a visible police identification?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:41 p.m.
My person is not relevant
.
. 2025-04-14 05:42 p.m.
Just because he couldn't see my badge as it was on my waist and visible does not mean i did not have other features identifying myself as an on duty police officer
..
Just because he couldn't see my badge as it was on my waist and visible does not mean i did not have other features identifying myself as an on duty police officer
.
. 2025-04-14 05:42 p.m.
not visible*
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:43 p.m.
So, depending on which argument you are making, the car can be seen both as a civilian one and an unmarked police car?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:45 p.m.
Again; the car is by definition an unmarked police car because of the features it had.

Here's what chatgpt says: "An unmarked police car is a vehicle used by law enforcement that does not display standard police insignia or markings but is still equipped with emergency lights and sirens for official use."

It's called a civilian vehicle simply because it isn't a stanard issued vehicle by the department. the definition of what it was at the time does not change.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:46 p.m.
Yes or No, did you or did you not earlier call the car a civilian vehicle?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:46 p.m.
I guess? i dont remember. look at my messages
.
. 2025-04-14 05:46 p.m.
im not going back to read them
.
. 2025-04-14 05:47 p.m.
show me a specific message and i'll tell u
.
. 2025-04-14 05:47 p.m.
im failing to see how its relevant to the conversation
.
. 2025-04-14 05:47 p.m.
We've been dragging on for 30 minutes
.
. 2025-04-14 05:47 p.m.
I am going to sleep soon
.
. 2025-04-14 05:47 p.m.
so
..
I guess? i dont remember. look at my messages
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:48 p.m.
You cannot remember an answer from 30 minutes ago?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:48 p.m.
We discussed quite a few things did we not
.
. 2025-04-14 05:48 p.m.
You are pressing me to describe what I meant by saying civilian vehicle when I gave you the definition of an unmarked police car
.
. 2025-04-14 05:49 p.m.
Just because I might have referred to my car as a civilian vehicle does not change by definition what it is
.
. 2025-04-14 05:49 p.m.
I cannot be expected to remember what I said from multiple questions and multiple answers I gave or expect to remember 1 specific answer that you are referring to
.
. 2025-04-14 05:50 p.m.
Unless you have any other questions to ask me that do not relate to my car because I am tired of answering the same question again
.
. 2025-04-14 05:50 p.m.
I'd like to end this
.
. 2025-04-14 05:50 p.m.
It's late
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:50 p.m.
You would agree that, from the perspective of the defendant, there would have been no visible indication on your person identifying you as law enforcement?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:51 p.m.
Cuz :🥀:

I had emergency lights. what other indication would he need
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:51 p.m.
Answer the question.
.
. 2025-04-14 05:51 p.m.
No
.
. 2025-04-14 05:51 p.m.
If you are making the argument that
.
. 2025-04-14 05:52 p.m.
Just because my badge wasn't visible, and that is not something I control btw, meant I did not identify myself as law enforcement then idk what to tell u
.
. 2025-04-14 05:52 p.m.
I was driving an unmarked police car
.
. 2025-04-14 05:52 p.m.
with the lights on
.
. 2025-04-14 05:52 p.m.
I will not accept the argument that just because my badge wasn't visible that it indicates my person wasn't a police officer
..
I will not accept the argument that just because my badge wasn't visible that it indicates my person wasn't a police officer
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:53 p.m.
Hey buddy
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:53 p.m.
I'm the one asking questions here
.
. 2025-04-14 05:53 p.m.
And I'm the one answering
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:53 p.m.
You testified that you were wearing business attire clothes and that there was no visible belt badge on you. How could there have been a visible indication on your person identifying you as law enforcement?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:53 p.m.
The belt badge was on my waist
.
. 2025-04-14 05:53 p.m.
That is a visible indication on my person identifying me as law enforcement
.
. 2025-04-14 05:53 p.m.
You are trying to make this argument that he couldn't of seen the badge
.
. 2025-04-14 05:54 p.m.
BUT HE COULD SEE THE LIGHTS
.
. 2025-04-14 05:54 p.m.
:🤦‍♂️:
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:54 p.m.
You testified that your belt badge was covered up and impossible to see.
.
. 2025-04-14 05:54 p.m.
BECAUSE IT IS ON MY WAIST
.
. 2025-04-14 05:54 p.m.
AND THE DASHBOARD WOULD BLOCK IT
.
. 2025-04-14 05:54 p.m.
BUT THE LIGHTS ON THE CAR WOULD SERVE AS AN IDENTIFYING FEATURE
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:54 p.m.
@meowiitten Can the court please direct the witness to not yell and raise his voice
.
. 2025-04-14 05:55 p.m.
is caps raising my voice
.
. 2025-04-14 05:55 p.m.
im sowwy :💔: :🥀:
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:58 p.m.
@. You testified that your belt badge was covered and impossible to see, and that you were in business attire clothing, nothing marking your person visibly as a law enforcement officer. Yet, now you have claimed that your belt badge was visible indication of you on your person as a law enforcement officer.

So which is it? Was the badge visible or not?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:58 p.m.
I'm killing myself court
.
. 2025-04-14 05:58 p.m.
the witness has been worn out successfully
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:58 p.m.
Answer the question.
.
. 2025-04-14 05:59 p.m.
At this point I really don't want to it's just this useless back and forth
.
. 2025-04-14 05:59 p.m.
It's 12 am
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 05:59 p.m.
You don't have a choice. Answer the question.
.
. 2025-04-14 05:59 p.m.
Excuse me..?
.
. 2025-04-14 05:59 p.m.
You don't tell me when to sleep JamesGardai
.
. 2025-04-14 05:59 p.m.
If you want an answer you'll wait for tomorrow
.
. 2025-04-14 06:00 p.m.
If the court wants to hold me in contempt for having to go to sleep
.
. 2025-04-14 06:00 p.m.
So be it
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:00 p.m.
@meowiitten Can the Court direct the witness to answer the question? Instead of arguing with me he could just answer.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 06:04 p.m.
@. You have to answer the question
.
. 2025-04-14 06:04 p.m.
If you promise it's the last one
.
. 2025-04-14 06:04 p.m.
I'll answer
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:05 p.m.
It is most definitely not the last one. Answer the question
.
. 2025-04-14 06:05 p.m.
That's ridiculous
.
. 2025-04-14 06:05 p.m.
There's no way I'm not going to sleep at 12 am because JamesGardai is demanding I answer all of his ridiculously long questions on a normal work day
.
. 2025-04-14 06:05 p.m.
@meowiitten
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 06:06 p.m.
@Fish Wrap it up
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:06 p.m.
I will I just have a couple more
.
. 2025-04-14 06:06 p.m.
I'm not agreeing to a couple more because it is late for me
..
I'm not agreeing to a couple more because it is late for me
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 06:09 p.m.
You can handle a few more
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 06:09 p.m.
@Fish Please ask them quickly
👍1
.
. 2025-04-14 06:09 p.m.
Judge it's a work day
.
. 2025-04-14 06:09 p.m.
?
FishFish
@. You testified that your belt badge was covered and impossible to see, and that you were in business attire clothing, nothing marking your person visibly as ...
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:09 p.m.
This was my last asked question
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:10 p.m.
@.
FishFish
@. You testified that your belt badge was covered and impossible to see, and that you were in business attire clothing, nothing marking your person visibly as ...
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:11 p.m.
Your honor he’s badgering!
xolaazxolaaz
Your honor he’s badgering!
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:11 p.m.
?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:11 p.m.
Stop this!
FishFish
@. You testified that your belt badge was covered and impossible to see, and that you were in business attire clothing, nothing marking your person visibly as ...
.
. 2025-04-14 06:14 p.m.
I'm not answering the same question use my previous answers.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:14 p.m.
@meowiitten Okay at this point I'm asking the Court to issue sanctions on the witness
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:15 p.m.
He was told like 10 times, including by this court, to answer the question
.
. 2025-04-14 06:15 p.m.
Because you keep asking the same question rephrased expecting a different answer
.
. 2025-04-14 06:15 p.m.
I'm sick of it
FishFish
@. You testified that your belt badge was covered and impossible to see, and that you were in business attire clothing, nothing marking your person visibly as ...
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:15 p.m.
Objection asked and answered @meowiitten
FishFish
You testified that you were wearing business attire clothes and that there was no visible belt badge on you. How could there have been a visible indication on your person ident...
.
. 2025-04-14 06:16 p.m.
.
.
. 2025-04-14 06:16 p.m.
Like
xolaazxolaaz
Objection asked and answered @meowiitten
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:16 p.m.
Please point to where I have asked that question (I haven't)
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:16 p.m.
He’s asked twice about the badge being visible and even openly said the witness didn’t have one on in court
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:16 p.m.
Yet he repeats the question
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:16 p.m.
That is not the same question.
.
. 2025-04-14 06:16 p.m.
Yes it is cuz
FishFish
You testified that you did not come in close proximity to the defendant. So considering you had no visible police identification on your person, he would have no idea who was drivi...
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:16 p.m.
No visible identification
..
Yes it is cuz
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:16 p.m.
Your job here is to answer questions not advocate for the State, please stay in your own lane.
FishFish
@. You testified that your belt badge was covered and impossible to see, and that you were in business attire clothing, nothing marking your person visibly as ...
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:16 p.m.
Did he have a badge or not?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:17 p.m.
So he answered your question already or you’ve just testified for the witness
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:17 p.m.
And he didn’t respond to it
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:17 p.m.
His testimony was contradictory and I was pressing on it. What you are saying doesn't even make sense
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:18 p.m.
You said in a statement that there was no badge visible
.
. 2025-04-14 06:18 p.m.
I'm calling for @dero
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:18 p.m.
But ur asking if he had a badge present
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:18 p.m.
??
xolaazxolaaz
But ur asking if he had a badge present
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:18 p.m.
Because he said that a badge was visible after he said there wasn't?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:18 p.m.
lol
FishFish
Because he said that a badge was visible after he said there wasn't?
.
. 2025-04-14 06:19 p.m.
Where.
.
. 2025-04-14 06:19 p.m.
Point to an answer I said that right now
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:19 p.m.
He already answered your question big dog
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:19 p.m.
Stop talking
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:19 p.m.
@meowiitten I request that the Court instruct the witness of his purpose here. Not to argue with counsel or advocate for the State, but to answer questions.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:19 p.m.
He stated there was no badge visible and you repeat the same question
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:20 p.m.
Can we just get a ruling
.
. 2025-04-14 06:20 p.m.
I'm going to sleep
.
. 2025-04-14 06:20 p.m.
Bye
dero
dero 2025-04-14 06:21 p.m.
@meowiitten Can me and amit sleep in peace please
dero
dero 2025-04-14 06:21 p.m.
WE are sleeping
sadoimpactosadoimpacto used
/remove
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-14 06:21 p.m.
Case Modified
@meowiitten has removed @dero from the case channel.
xolaazxolaaz
Objection asked and answered @meowiitten
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 06:22 p.m.
Overruled
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:22 p.m.
Ok let him ask the same badge question over and over
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:23 p.m.
xolaazxolaaz
Click to see attachment.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:24 p.m.
I don't see what your getting at with this. I was asking a question then I got interrupted.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:24 p.m.
Your objection is overruled anyway, there is no reason to keep pressing the issue.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:24 p.m.
He literally said it’s blocked by the dashboard so therefore it’s not visible
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:24 p.m.
How are you gonna ask if it’s visible again
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:25 p.m.
Whatever let’s finish
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 06:25 p.m.
@Fish Continue with the questions
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 06:25 p.m.
Or he left...
FishFish
@. You testified that your belt badge was covered and impossible to see, and that you were in business attire clothing, nothing marking your person visibly as ...
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:25 p.m.
@.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 06:25 p.m.
Well
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:25 p.m.
Dude he’s not even on the same continent
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:25 p.m.
Let him sleep
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:26 p.m.
I am asking for sanctions on the witness. His behavior in this proceeding is unacceptable.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:26 p.m.
Yeah sanction his life for sleeping
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:26 p.m.
Mods
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:26 p.m.
He continues to be argumentative, raise his voice, yell at me, and advocate for the State.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:26 p.m.
And then after this Court ordered him to answer the question, defied the order and refused to do so.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:26 p.m.
So was the badge visible or not visible..?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:27 p.m.
Is it visible?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:27 p.m.
No the dashboard blocked it
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-14 06:27 p.m.
Yea but is it still visible?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:28 p.m.
@xolaaz Please stop pushing the already ruled objection. Your behavior here, too, is unbecoming of a prosecutor.
FishFish
I am asking for sanctions on the witness. His behavior in this proceeding is unacceptable.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-14 06:41 p.m.
@meowiitten Will I get a ruling?
FishFish
@meowiitten Will I get a ruling?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-14 06:45 p.m.
I’m going to deny it now but note it for the future
FishFish
@. You testified that your belt badge was covered and impossible to see, and that you were in business attire clothing, nothing marking your person visibly as ...
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-15 02:32 p.m.
@. You have to answer the question. Please reply when you get the chance
.
. 2025-04-15 04:29 p.m.
I will tomorrow
.
. 2025-04-15 04:29 p.m.
I didn’t forget
..
I will tomorrow
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-15 05:01 p.m.
You're here now
Fish
Fish 2025-04-15 05:28 p.m.
@meowiitten I reiterate my request for sanctions. He’s being evasive instead of just answering, not to mention the fact that he was being extremely argumentative before.
..
I will tomorrow
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-15 05:33 p.m.
I don’t understand why you can’t answer right now. You already had a day to answer
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-15 05:33 p.m.
I’m directing you to answer
.
. 2025-04-15 05:48 p.m.
I have real life responsibilities that do not relate to a lego game
.
. 2025-04-15 05:48 p.m.
If the court can’t recognize it that is your burden to carry
.
. 2025-04-15 05:48 p.m.
I treat clark county as a game not as a responsibility
.
. 2025-04-15 05:49 p.m.
I am busy, and when I’ll be available, I will tend to this.
..
I am busy, and when I’ll be available, I will tend to this.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-15 05:50 p.m.
You're available
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-15 05:50 p.m.
You typed 4 messages when you could've responded to one
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-15 05:50 p.m.
Are you going to answer the question? @.
.
. 2025-04-15 05:51 p.m.
I’m not available I’m going to sleep
.
. 2025-04-15 05:51 p.m.
It isn’t one question it’s multiple
.
. 2025-04-15 05:51 p.m.
If this is such a pressing matter send me a list of questions
.
. 2025-04-15 05:51 p.m.
And I will answer them at my own time
.
. 2025-04-15 05:52 p.m.
Or a great other alternative
.
. 2025-04-15 05:52 p.m.
Ask the questions when it’s morning hours for me
FishFish
@. You testified that your belt badge was covered and impossible to see, and that you were in business attire clothing, nothing marking your person visibly as ...
.
. 2025-04-15 05:54 p.m.
I don’t know if it was visible or not I’m not vinniemc. Ask vinnie if it was visible.
.
. 2025-04-15 05:55 p.m.
I had it on
.
. 2025-04-15 05:56 p.m.
With the amount of questions you ask regarding the same topic surrounding my belt badge I’m not entertaining this anymore
..
I don’t know if it was visible or not I’m not vinniemc. Ask vinnie if it was visible.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-15 06:01 p.m.
Well you just recently testified that it was impossible to see, correct?
.
. 2025-04-15 06:01 p.m.
Check what i testified
Fish
Fish 2025-04-15 06:01 p.m.
Answer the question.
.
. 2025-04-15 06:01 p.m.
I have indeed
.
. 2025-04-15 06:02 p.m.
Check what i testified before
Fish
Fish 2025-04-15 06:02 p.m.
Don't tell me what to do.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-15 06:03 p.m.
@. You testified that it was both impossible to see and that it was visible. Those are contradictory statements, yes?
.
. 2025-04-15 06:03 p.m.
You talk to me like that one more time
.
. 2025-04-15 06:03 p.m.
I’m leaving this server
Fish
Fish 2025-04-15 06:03 p.m.
..
Fish
Fish 2025-04-15 06:03 p.m.
@meowiitten
FishFish
@. You testified that it was both impossible to see and that it was visible. Those are contradictory statements, yes?
.
. 2025-04-15 06:04 p.m.
The badge was present on my person
.
. 2025-04-15 06:04 p.m.
I don’t know if it was visible to vinnie
.
. 2025-04-15 06:04 p.m.
Ask him
.
. 2025-04-15 06:04 p.m.
Or refer to my previous statements
Frankie
Frankie 2025-04-15 06:06 p.m.
It wasn’t visible.
Frankie
Frankie 2025-04-15 06:06 p.m.
Just saying.
..
The badge was present on my person
Fish
Fish 2025-04-15 06:07 p.m.
@meowiitten This is not even an answer to my question. I move to strike as non responsive and ask the Court to order the witness to answer.
.
. 2025-04-15 06:08 p.m.
I plead the 5th I cba to talk to u any longer
.
. 2025-04-15 06:08 p.m.
The court can proceed without my statement
FishFish
@meowiitten This is not even an answer to my question. I move to strike as non responsive and ask the Court to order the witness to answer.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-15 06:19 p.m.
That's an answer
Fish
Fish 2025-04-15 06:26 p.m.
@. You testified that the badge on your person was impossible to see. You then told me that it was visible. You then told me that you don’t know if it was visible to the defendant. So I would be correct in saying that you’ve now given three different descriptions of the same badge, correct?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-15 06:27 p.m.
your honor how many times is he gonna ask this question
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-15 06:27 p.m.
the dude already stated he had a badge, it was blocked by the dashboard so there fore it was present, not visible
xolaazxolaaz
your honor how many times is he gonna ask this question
Fish
Fish 2025-04-15 06:28 p.m.
If you are going to object, say so. If not, then stop flooding the channel.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-15 06:28 p.m.
your defendant was just typing
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-15 06:28 p.m.
ill talk here
FishFish
@. You testified that the badge on your person was impossible to see. You then told me that it was visible. You then told me that you don’t know if it was visibl...
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-15 08:08 p.m.
Move on from this line of questioning please
Fish
Fish 2025-04-15 08:15 p.m.
Ok
Fish
Fish 2025-04-15 08:15 p.m.
I have no further questions @meowiitten
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-15 08:16 p.m.
@xolaaz Would you like to cross-examine the witness? Do you have another witness to call?
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
@xolaaz Would you like to cross-examine the witness? Do you have another witness to call?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-15 08:22 p.m.
id like the opportunity to cross examine the witness again
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-15 08:22 p.m.
with a 48 hour deadline to questions
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-15 08:23 p.m.
You will have 24 hours from his response to ask a question
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-15 08:26 p.m.
@xolaaz
.
. 2025-04-16 06:23 a.m.
@xolaaz Tell me when pookie
.
. 2025-04-16 06:23 a.m.
I should be available today
.
. 2025-04-16 06:23 a.m.
Just don't push my boundaries during late hours
Fish
Fish 2025-04-16 08:52 p.m.
@meowiitten Examination has been yielded since it's been more than 24 hours w/o a question(edited)
Fish
Fish 2025-04-16 08:52 p.m.
can we move on
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 08:57 p.m.
Yes
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 08:57 p.m.
@Fish @xolaaz Does either of you have a witness to call?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-16 08:58 p.m.
who i call or who i dont call depends on Xolaaz's presentation so I will wait for his response
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 10:11 p.m.
@xolaaz Well?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-16 10:12 p.m.
I mean if you can’t wait 1 day in a Roblox discord trial then you can have this case
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-16 10:12 p.m.
Other cases sit and take weeks even months but my case we can’t even take 1 day
xolaazxolaaz
I mean if you can’t wait 1 day in a Roblox discord trial then you can have this case
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 10:22 p.m.
Yes or no?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 10:22 p.m.
It was a question
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 10:22 p.m.
Are you calling another witness
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 10:22 p.m.
It's completely reasonable to expect responses within 24 hours
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 10:22 p.m.
That is utterly and completely reasonable
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 10:23 p.m.
You can literally open your phone for 5 seconds
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 10:23 p.m.
Type a question
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 10:23 p.m.
And the timer resets
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 10:23 p.m.
I have zero sympathy for your situation
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-16 11:21 p.m.
I am not opening my phone 10 times a day for you
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-16 11:21 p.m.
You are not that important
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-16 11:23 p.m.
And yes I do have a witness to call
xolaazxolaaz
And yes I do have a witness to call
Fish
Fish 2025-04-16 11:25 p.m.
You should say who so you can speed things up
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-16 11:51 p.m.
@meowiitten
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-16 11:51 p.m.
calling @w. to the stand
sadoimpactosadoimpacto used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-16 11:52 p.m.
Case Modified
@meowiitten has added @w. to the case channel.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-16 11:52 p.m.
@w. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
w.
w. 2025-04-16 11:52 p.m.
I do
w.
w. 2025-04-16 11:53 p.m.
also have to note I’ll have to answer questions at a later time as I’m gonna be unavailable shortly
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 12:37 a.m.
can I question the witness
xolaazxolaaz
can I question the witness
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-17 12:38 a.m.
Yes begin
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 12:59 a.m.
@w. state ur current employment
w.
w. 2025-04-17 03:53 a.m.
lieutenant in the mayflower state police
w.w.
lieutenant in the mayflower state police
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 10:36 a.m.
Were you present In Medford on march 2nd
w.
w. 2025-04-17 11:47 a.m.
yes
w.w.
yes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 12:12 p.m.
Where in Medford?
xolaazxolaaz
Where in Medford?
w.
w. 2025-04-17 12:13 p.m.
i was at the clark county sheriff's office station
w.w.
i was at the clark county sheriff's office station
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 12:29 p.m.
Did you make contact with the defendant, vinniemc2165 at the station?
xolaazxolaaz
Did you make contact with the defendant, vinniemc2165 at the station?
w.
w. 2025-04-17 12:31 p.m.
yes
w.w.
yes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 12:57 p.m.
Do you recognize exhibit b?
xolaazxolaaz
Do you recognize exhibit b?
w.
w. 2025-04-17 03:54 p.m.
Yes
w.w.
Yes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 04:08 p.m.
How do you recognize it?
xolaazxolaaz
How do you recognize it?
w.
w. 2025-04-17 05:19 p.m.
I recorded this video
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 07:40 p.m.
Admit exhibit b @meowiitten
xolaazxolaaz
Admit exhibit b @meowiitten
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-17 08:02 p.m.
Admitted
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 09:36 p.m.
@w. hello, can you describe the events that led up to the video being recorded?
xolaazxolaaz
@w. hello, can you describe the events that led up to the video being recorded?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-17 09:41 p.m.
Objection, narrative.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 09:41 p.m.
?????
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 09:42 p.m.
its relevant and describes what occurred prior to the video so we can establish some context
FishFish
Objection, narrative.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-17 09:44 p.m.
Overruled
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 09:44 p.m.
thx
xolaazxolaaz
@w. hello, can you describe the events that led up to the video being recorded?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-17 09:44 p.m.
pls answer question when you can
xolaazxolaaz
@w. hello, can you describe the events that led up to the video being recorded?
w.
w. 2025-04-18 04:36 a.m.
I don’t entirely remember what happened but I do know that we were coming in from the the uphill road in order to access the CCSO armory to rearm ourselves
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-18 02:29 p.m.
@w. can you describe what the defendant, vinniemc2165 did at the sheriff's office garage on march 2nd?
xolaazxolaaz
@w. can you describe what the defendant, vinniemc2165 did at the sheriff's office garage on march 2nd?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 08:54 a.m.
from my perspective, added on in hindsight from what I saw from my colleague; amitbx’s perspective, the defendant used his service weapon to fire at amitbx when he was not a imminent threat with clearly visible emergency lighting mounted on his vehicle where he then walked away and went to go spawn his vehicle where I was able to spot him and identify him
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 01:42 p.m.
Objection to the answer, hearsay and legal conclusion.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 01:50 p.m.
Overruled
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 02:49 p.m.
Legal conclusion?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 02:50 p.m.
Ok..
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 03:38 p.m.
@w.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 03:38 p.m.
lets take a look at exhibit a
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 03:42 p.m.
at 0:16
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 03:42 p.m.
what is the timestamp at the bottom right?
xolaazxolaaz
what is the timestamp at the bottom right?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:11 p.m.
14:24:46
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:13 p.m.
okay so there is a 6 hour difference between witness 1 and witness 2
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:14 p.m.
@w. going to exhibit b, at 0:06, do you hear any audible noises indicating a firearm being shot?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:15 p.m.
is exhibit b the video that i recorded
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:15 p.m.
this is exhibit b for the record
xolaazxolaaz
@w. going to exhibit b, at 0:06, do you hear any audible noises indicating a firearm being shot?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:15 p.m.
yes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:17 p.m.
@meowiitten
xolaazxolaaz
@meowiitten
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 04:18 p.m.
Asking me to admit?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 04:18 p.m.
What do you need
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:18 p.m.
am i allowed to introduce a department database
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:18 p.m.
it wouldnt need to be authenticated
xolaazxolaaz
it wouldnt need to be authenticated
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 04:21 p.m.
Yup
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 04:22 p.m.
Exhibit C?
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
Exhibit C?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:22 p.m.
1 sec
xolaazxolaaz
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:23 p.m.
@meowiitten admit as exhibit c
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 04:24 p.m.
Ok admitted
xolaazxolaaz
@w. going to exhibit b, at 0:06, do you hear any audible noises indicating a firearm being shot?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:27 p.m.
@w. going to exhibit b, at 0:06, who do you see in the garage?
xolaazxolaaz
@w. going to exhibit b, at 0:06, who do you see in the garage?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:28 p.m.
i think you mixed up the time, i am not in the garage nor can i see into it at 0:06
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:28 p.m.
sorry
xolaazxolaaz
@w. going to exhibit b, at 0:06, who do you see in the garage?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:29 p.m.
withdrawing
w.w.
i think you mixed up the time, i am not in the garage nor can i see into it at 0:06
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:29 p.m.
in exhibit b, at 0:11, who do you see inside of the garage?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:30 p.m.
i see amitbx, deceased, and a deputy walking out of the garage who i later identified as the defendant
w.w.
i see amitbx, deceased, and a deputy walking out of the garage who i later identified as the defendant
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:31 p.m.
what timestamp would you say you identified the deputy?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:31 p.m.
0:14 of exhibit b
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:32 p.m.
Besides amitbx and that deputy, was there anyone else in that garage?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:32 p.m.
not to my knowledge
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:32 p.m.
do you ever lose line of sight with the deputy walking out of the garage?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:32 p.m.
no
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:35 p.m.
lets look at exhibit c
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:35 p.m.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:35 p.m.
were you ever employed in the sheriff's office? @w.
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:36 p.m.
yes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:36 p.m.
what rank were you?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:36 p.m.
i was a sergeant
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:36 p.m.
is that a command position?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:36 p.m.
yes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:37 p.m.
So you were a sergeant, a command position in the clark county sheriff's office. Are sergeants required to be familiar with the policies, like training or use of force?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:38 p.m.
i would say that goes for everybody
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:38 p.m.
Every member of the department?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:39 p.m.
sworn deputies, yes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:39 p.m.
okay so, given your knowledge as a sworn deputy in the clark county sheriff's office, are deputies typically allowed to use - use of force against other members of law enforcement?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:40 p.m.
no, but it is definitely circumstantial
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:40 p.m.
circumstantial?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:40 p.m.
can you define that?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:41 p.m.
meaning, depends on the exact circumstances of the situation
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:41 p.m.
can you provide an example for the court?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:41 p.m.
in what scenario would use of force be permitted against a law enforcement member
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:41 p.m.
based off your personal knowledge
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:42 p.m.
if officer A is shooting at officer B when they do not a pose a threat, and are not a fleeing felon, or more conclusively there is no legal justification for officer A to be firing, then officer B is allowed to defend themselves
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:42 p.m.
okay.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:42 p.m.
lets backtrack here,
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:43 p.m.
looking at exhibit a,
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:43 p.m.
the entirety of exhibit a,
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:43 p.m.
is amitbx driving a vehicle? @w.
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:43 p.m.
yes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:44 p.m.
while driving that vehicle, does he ever make physical contact with the deputy, who you identified as the defendant?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:44 p.m.
no
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:44 p.m.
interesting, so he doesnt ever make physical contact yet you stated that in your example there needs to be either a fleeing felon or a deadly threat
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:45 p.m.
not a question ^
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:46 p.m.
given your personal experience as a law enforcement officer, have you used other departments stations? @w.
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:46 p.m.
yes i have
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:47 p.m.
how often do you typically use other departments stations?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:47 p.m.
very often
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:47 p.m.
they must get visitors pretty often then
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:48 p.m.
definitely
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:49 p.m.
@w. in your experience, have you came across departments using undercover vehicles?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:49 p.m.
yes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 04:49 p.m.
how popular would you say they are used, in your experience?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 04:50 p.m.
from what i see, it is not that often but its always a possibility that any civillian car could be a undercover police car
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:01 p.m.
@w. based off exhibit a, was the defendant ever seen trying to calm the situation?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:03 p.m.
no
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:03 p.m.
@xolaaz
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:05 p.m.
in your experience with the policies of the clark county sheriff's office, in a tier based ranking, what does deadly force rank?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:06 p.m.
the last resort, or #5
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:07 p.m.
are you familiar with de-escalation tactics used by law enforcement officers?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:07 p.m.
i would say so
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:08 p.m.
What factors do you consider before deciding whether to use deadly force
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:09 p.m.
if theres other means of apprehension, such as simply handcuffing, or tasing, or ordering them to ...
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:09 p.m.
okay again, lets go back to exhibit a
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:10 p.m.
as soon as the defendant comes into view, does he ever attempt to use a taser or make verbal commands?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:10 p.m.
no
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:10 p.m.
what does he do?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:11 p.m.
begins firing repeatedly, even after where amitbx is stationary
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:11 p.m.
okay let me get this straight
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:13 p.m.
he doesn't use any tactics you mentioned or any non-lethal methods. Interesting..
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:13 p.m.
@w. In exhibit a, when would you say he starts firing his weapon?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:13 p.m.
the defendant starts firing his weapon*
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:14 p.m.
just a timestamp
xolaazxolaaz
@w. In exhibit a, when would you say he starts firing his weapon?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:15 p.m.
at the immediate end of 00:14
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:17 p.m.
in exhibit a, what timestamp do you hear the weapon stop firing?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:17 p.m.
00:18
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:18 p.m.
@w. Have you ever died while playing clark county?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:19 p.m.
yes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:19 p.m.
okay, what is on amitb'x screen when the weapon stops firing?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:19 p.m.
in the middle of his screen
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:19 p.m.
the clark county death screen
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:20 p.m.
The defendant stops firing his weapon whenever amitbx reaches the death screen?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:20 p.m.
around that time yea
xolaazxolaaz
The defendant stops firing his weapon whenever amitbx reaches the death screen?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:21 p.m.
withdrawn
w.w.
around that time yea
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:21 p.m.
@meowiitten move to strike witnesses response
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:22 p.m.
@w. Can you describe the defendant's actions whenever amitbx reaches the death screen?
xolaazxolaaz
@meowiitten move to strike witnesses response
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 05:22 p.m.
You were late so overruled
xolaazxolaaz
@w. Can you describe the defendant's actions whenever amitbx reaches the death screen?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:23 p.m.
he stops firing his firearm at amitbx when he reaches the death screen
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:24 p.m.
@w. Have you ever misfired a weapon?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:24 p.m.
if misfired refers to accidentally clicking then ye
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:24 p.m.
s
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:25 p.m.
accidental clicking?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:25 p.m.
how many gunshots would you say is accidental
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:26 p.m.
in my opinion its 3 maximum for an automatic rifle
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:28 p.m.
in exhibit a, do you hear more or less than three gunshots from the defendant?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:28 p.m.
yes
w.w.
yes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:28 p.m.
@meowiitten move to strike non responsive
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:28 p.m.
my bad i misunderstood the question
xolaazxolaaz
in exhibit a, do you hear more or less than three gunshots from the defendant?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:29 p.m.
more
xolaazxolaaz
@meowiitten move to strike non responsive
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 05:29 p.m.
Overruled; you phrased it as a Y/N
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:29 p.m.
???
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:29 p.m.
I asked if it was more or less
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 05:30 p.m.
My mistake, I didn't see that part
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 05:30 p.m.
You can rephrase it
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 05:30 p.m.
I won't strike the answer though that's kind of pointless
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:30 p.m.
i mean he answered the question anyway so
w.w.
more
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:31 p.m.
okay so more than three
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 05:31 p.m.
Please don't ask me to strike answers unless it's something ridiculous
xolaazxolaaz
okay so more than three
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:31 p.m.
yes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:31 p.m.
yes your honor!
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 05:31 p.m.
Like irrelevance or impropriety
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:32 p.m.
@w. have you ever taken a life with a firearm while on duty as a law enforcement officer?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:32 p.m.
i have
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:33 p.m.
When you are trying to take a life, do you use more or less than three gunshots?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:34 p.m.
withdrawn
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:36 p.m.
@w. Can you describe how many shots you typically fire when using deadly force
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:37 p.m.
it depends on whether or not the target is moving, but if they are, then it could range from 5-30 depending on distance
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:39 p.m.
What distinguishes an accidental firing from an intentional one in terms of the number of shots?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:40 p.m.
an accidental one would generally be over in a split second and random, whereas an intentional shooting would be targetted and typically last more than a second
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:41 p.m.
in exhibit a, using the timestamp feature, how many seconds would you say that the defendant is firing his weapon for?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:45 p.m.
@w.
xolaazxolaaz
in exhibit a, using the timestamp feature, how many seconds would you say that the defendant is firing his weapon for?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:48 p.m.
approximately 3 seconds
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:55 p.m.
@w.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 05:56 p.m.
based on your ccso sergeant, and law enforcement experience, would the force utilized by the defendant be considered a proper use of force?
w.
w. 2025-04-19 05:58 p.m.
no
xolaazxolaaz
okay so there is a 6 hour difference between witness 1 and witness 2
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 06:08 p.m.
Objection, counsel is testifying.
xolaazxolaaz
am i allowed to introduce a department database
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 06:09 p.m.
There wasn’t any department database in discovery. I object.
xolaazxolaaz
interesting, so he doesnt ever make physical contact yet you stated that in your example there needs to be either a fleeing felon or a deadly threat
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 06:09 p.m.
Objection, counsel is testifying.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 06:12 p.m.
I object to the entire line of questioning because the witness has not been admitted as an expert.
xolaazxolaaz
@w. based off exhibit a, was the defendant ever seen trying to calm the situation?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 06:13 p.m.
Objection, calls for speculation.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 06:13 p.m.
he can testify to his personal experience as a law enforcement officer
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 06:13 p.m.
All overruled
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
All overruled
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 06:14 p.m.
Can i know why
FishFish
There wasn’t any department database in discovery. I object.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 06:25 p.m.
If you need a recess to review it you can ask for one. Or just do it now before cross
FishFish
Objection, counsel is testifying.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 06:26 p.m.
Non-substantive comment because it’s not directed to the witness
FishFish
Objection, counsel is testifying.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 06:26 p.m.
Clarifying the witness’s testimony
FishFish
Objection, calls for speculation.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 06:26 p.m.
Asking about the observations of the witness based on his recollection of the exhibits(edited)
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
Clarifying the witness’s testimony
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 06:33 p.m.
Why is he allowed to interpret the testimony and put it on the record
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 06:34 p.m.
w/o any question
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
If you need a recess to review it you can ask for one. Or just do it now before cross
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 06:34 p.m.
I would like time to review but im not home rn
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 06:37 p.m.
And im confused on why ur allowing him to use the database when it’s not in discovery
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 06:37 p.m.
It’s not like it’s some piece of evidence that was just discovered and unable to be put in discovery
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 06:56 p.m.
Everything I state to clarify has already been established
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 06:56 p.m.
Nothing is speculation or interpreted
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 08:53 p.m.
@meowiitten we can move into defense cross
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 08:54 p.m.
@Fish Go ahead
w.w.
if officer A is shooting at officer B when they do not a pose a threat, and are not a fleeing felon, or more conclusively there is no legal justification for officer A to be firing...
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:15 p.m.
I object to this answer because it is a legal conclusion and out of scope for a lay witness.
xolaazxolaaz
based on your ccso sergeant, and law enforcement experience, would the force utilized by the defendant be considered a proper use of force?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:16 p.m.
Objection, legal conclusion.
w.w.
an accidental one would generally be over in a split second and random, whereas an intentional shooting would be targetted and typically last more than a second
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:16 p.m.
Objection, improper lay opinion.
xolaazxolaaz
in your experience with the policies of the clark county sheriff's office, in a tier based ranking, what does deadly force rank?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:20 p.m.
Objection, improper lay opinion.
xolaazxolaaz
are you familiar with de-escalation tactics used by law enforcement officers?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:21 p.m.
Objection, improper lay opinion.
xolaazxolaaz
@w. have you ever taken a life with a firearm while on duty as a law enforcement officer?
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:22 p.m.
Objection, relevance.
xolaazxolaaz
What factors do you consider before deciding whether to use deadly force
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:23 p.m.
Objection, improper lay opinion.
xolaazxolaaz
@w. Can you describe how many shots you typically fire when using deadly force
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:24 p.m.
Objection, calls for speculation and relevance.
FishFish
Objection, legal conclusion.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:30 p.m.
this is not a legal conclusion this is a determination based off his experience with policies and as a command member
FishFish
Objection, improper lay opinion.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:30 p.m.
personal experience
FishFish
Objection, improper lay opinion.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:30 p.m.
his experience, he can testify to law enforcement things under fre 701
FishFish
Objection, improper lay opinion.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:31 p.m.
personal experience
FishFish
Objection, calls for speculation and relevance.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:31 p.m.
completely relevant given this is an incident where deadly force was used in a law enforcement context, where the witness has experience as shown on testimony
FishFish
I object to this answer because it is a legal conclusion and out of scope for a lay witness.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:31 p.m.
this is not a legal conclusion
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:33 p.m.
You are framing the witness as an expert when he is a layman. The whole record should be struck.
xolaazxolaaz
this is not a legal conclusion this is a determination based off his experience with policies and as a command member
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:34 p.m.
Saying force is justified or not is a legal conclusion, plain and simple.
xolaazxolaaz
personal experience
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:34 p.m.
He is not an expert in shootings / ballistics / firearms so it would not be proper.
FishFish
You are framing the witness as an expert when he is a layman. The whole record should be struck.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:34 p.m.
hes testifying under his law enforcement experience
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:34 p.m.
he just testified that hes killed people with firearms
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:34 p.m.
everything is under personal experience
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:35 p.m.
no where did i ask for a broad conclusion
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:35 p.m.
I'll wait for the judge.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:35 p.m.
same
Fish
Fish 2025-04-19 09:36 p.m.
Indeed, there is no point in arguing back and forth.(edited)
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:36 p.m.
this is not arguing
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-19 09:36 p.m.
this is me responding to your claims sir
FishFish
I object to this answer because it is a legal conclusion and out of scope for a lay witness.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 11:09 p.m.
Overruled
FishFish
Objection, legal conclusion.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 11:09 p.m.
Sustained
FishFish
Objection, improper lay opinion.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 11:09 p.m.
Overruled
FishFish
Objection, improper lay opinion.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 11:09 p.m.
Overruled
FishFish
Objection, improper lay opinion.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 11:09 p.m.
Overruled
FishFish
Objection, relevance.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 11:10 p.m.
Overruled
FishFish
Objection, improper lay opinion.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 11:10 p.m.
Overruled
FishFish
Objection, calls for speculation and relevance.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-19 11:10 p.m.
Overruled
Fish
Fish 2025-04-20 06:17 p.m.
@w. You were not directly involved in the incident between the defendant and AmitBX, correct?
FishFish
@w. You were not directly involved in the incident between the defendant and AmitBX, correct?
w.
w. 2025-04-21 05:57 a.m.
do you mind elaborating on what being directly involved entails
w.
w. 2025-04-21 05:58 a.m.
cause i could say i was or wasnt
FishFish
@w. You were not directly involved in the incident between the defendant and AmitBX, correct?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-21 03:20 p.m.
@meowiitten ambiguous question
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-21 03:27 p.m.
Overruled
w.w.
do you mind elaborating on what being directly involved entails
Fish
Fish 2025-04-21 04:44 p.m.
By directly involved I mean you weren’t present at the incident at the exact time that it happened, correct?
FishFish
By directly involved I mean you weren’t present at the incident at the exact time that it happened, correct?
w.
w. 2025-04-22 06:52 a.m.
I was in very close proximity to where the shooting took place, but no I did not directly see the defendant fire his weapon myself
w.w.
I was in very close proximity to where the shooting took place, but no I did not directly see the defendant fire his weapon myself
Fish
Fish 2025-04-22 06:10 p.m.
So you would agree with me then that the incident you are describing to the court is from a third party point of view, correct?
FishFish
So you would agree with me then that the incident you are describing to the court is from a third party point of view, correct?
w.
w. 2025-04-22 11:15 p.m.
partially, audible cues still play a role in telling a story
w.w.
partially, audible cues still play a role in telling a story
Fish
Fish 2025-04-23 12:14 a.m.
So then the great majority of your understanding of what happened is based on what you saw in the other video, not what you saw yourself, yes?(edited)
FishFish
So then the great majority of your understanding of what happened is based on what you saw in the other video, not what you saw yourself, yes?(edited)
w.
w. 2025-04-23 06:50 a.m.
I’d say great majority is a reach, but yes it is true that not my entire understanding is based on my perspective
w.w.
I’d say great majority is a reach, but yes it is true that not my entire understanding is based on my perspective
Fish
Fish 2025-04-23 07:06 p.m.
So you would agree with me then that you don’t know what specific threat the defendant was reacting to, yes?
FishFish
So you would agree with me then that you don’t know what specific threat the defendant was reacting to, yes?
w.
w. 2025-04-24 06:56 a.m.
In that exact moment I wouldn’t have known who was shooting or who else was in that garage
Fish
Fish 2025-04-24 04:55 p.m.
@w. You’ve never trained anyone in use of force policies, correct?
FishFish
@w. You’ve never trained anyone in use of force policies, correct?
w.
w. 2025-04-25 06:53 a.m.
No I have, just not recently
w.w.
No I have, just not recently
Fish
Fish 2025-04-25 07:57 p.m.
And your answers of the use of force policies were based on your personal experience and not an actual full analysis of CCSO's department policies, right?
FishFish
And your answers of the use of force policies were based on your personal experience and not an actual full analysis of CCSO's department policies, right?
w.
w. 2025-04-27 10:44 a.m.
i did not fully analyze ccso policies before answering those questions yea
w.w.
i did not fully analyze ccso policies before answering those questions yea
Fish
Fish 2025-04-27 10:47 p.m.
And you'd agree with me that even the most experienced officers can interpret a threat in different ways, yes?
FishFish
And you'd agree with me that even the most experienced officers can interpret a threat in different ways, yes?
w.
w. 2025-04-28 02:17 a.m.
thats true but that doesnt mean that im agreeing as to whether or not deadly force doesnt have to meet a set standard, which ALL officers must follow
w.w.
thats true but that doesnt mean that im agreeing as to whether or not deadly force doesnt have to meet a set standard, which ALL officers must follow
Fish
Fish 2025-04-28 05:26 p.m.
But deadly force depends on the threat perceived, right?
FishFish
But deadly force depends on the threat perceived, right?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-28 05:54 p.m.
How many more questions do you have?
FishFish
But deadly force depends on the threat perceived, right?
w.
w. 2025-04-28 11:22 p.m.
I could perceive anything, that’s why there’s a set standard
Fish
Fish 2025-04-29 02:01 a.m.
no further questions
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-29 10:46 a.m.
@Fish @xolaaz Do either of you have another witness to call or can we move into closing arguments?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-29 11:41 a.m.
Closing
Fish
Fish 2025-04-29 01:52 p.m.
@meowiitten We move for a directed verdict of not guilty. The prosecution has failed to do any showing of mens rea.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-29 01:53 p.m.
..?
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-29 01:53 p.m.
We established intent
FishFish
@meowiitten We move for a directed verdict of not guilty. The prosecution has failed to do any showing of mens rea.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-29 02:45 p.m.
There’s no such thing in a bench trial
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-29 02:45 p.m.
You’d have to move for a judgment of acquittal
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-29 02:45 p.m.
And that would have to be in writing
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-29 02:45 p.m.
Preferably after closing arguments
Fish
Fish 2025-04-29 04:37 p.m.
Okay we can go to closing and i can file after in writing
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-29 05:29 p.m.
@xolaaz
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-29 11:21 p.m.
Will do in a couple
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-29 11:21 p.m.
Minutes
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-30 01:10 a.m.
Members of the court,

over the past few days you've heard testimony not from a regular witness, but a trained law enforcement officer, Sergeant Wemski, who has served our frontlines, understands well what the difference between accidentally using a firearm and deliberately utilizing deadly force is. Let's be perfectly clear, starting from beginning to end with Sergeant Wemski's testimony, we've established a clear line of reasoning that proves this case without a doubt. We've established that these inhumane and unethical actions from the defendant, vinniemc2165 were not merely an accident, but a reckless disregard for human life. We've established specifically that this application of a firearm was not an accident, but a reckless-inconsiderate decision. The supposed threat to life, that the defense counsel tried to apply to this case is nothing more then an inaccurate description of the truth. There was no threat to life that justified this utilization of force. There was no justification. We presented evidence that without a doubt proves the defendant in this case nothing short of guilty.

If we allowed people, that apply firearms in an inhumane way that results in a threat to life, in this instance a death, to simply break free of the consequences that we have in place to hold people accountable, what happens to our 'justice' system? What happens to the 'law' that we so sacredly hold in place to protect those who have been wronged? Think about that.

If we allow this inhumane rule breaker to flee the consequences of this murder, we have failed as a system.

I now leave the court to determine the result of this case.

Thank you
@meowiitten
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 01:13 a.m.
@Fish
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 06:59 p.m.
@Fish
Fish
Fish 2025-04-30 07:05 p.m.
Yes will give soon
FishFish
Yes will give soon
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 07:40 p.m.
What time will you have them in
Fish
Fish 2025-04-30 07:44 p.m.
within 30 min
Fish
Fish 2025-04-30 07:44 p.m.
im just wrapping some schoolwork up
Fish
Fish 2025-04-30 08:06 p.m.
At the heart of this case is a single question: did the prosecution prove all the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt? That burden is rested upon them, and the answer is clear: No, they have not.

Indeed, the prosecution presented a video of the acts, but as this Court knows, while a video may show what happened, it does not show what was in a person's mind. It is well settled for years in our jurisprudence that we require more than proof that an action occurred. We require that it was also carried out, in this case, "intentionally." 1 M.S.C. § 2102. This is where the prosecution's case falls short.

The prosecution first called AmitBX. While they got little to no substantive testimony from him, this Court asked them questions regarding the incident itself. In cross examination, he confirmed that he was driving a civilian vehicle and came in close proximity to the defendant. But his testimony, as depicted in cross examination, was plagued by contradictions, argumentative responses, and a complete lack of consistency. This witness could not keep their own account of the incident straight, resisted the most simple questions, and was committed towards confrontation and hostility rather than the truth. His credibility has collapsed. When the prosecution's only direct eyewitness to these alleged acts actions, their case has crumbled.

You then heard from Wemski. He admitted that he did not have a direct view of the incident. He did not testify nor come to anything close to infer that my client was acting with criminal intent. The prosecution did to even ask what happened before or after the incident to even come to a circumstantial evidence standpoint on intent.
Fish
Fish 2025-04-30 08:06 p.m.
The law does not criminalize everything tragic that happened. It criminalizes conduct that meets specific legal thresholds. That threshold includes a guilty mind, mens rea, and the fact is that was simply not proven here. The record does not establish that my client acted with criminal intent required under the law.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask that the defendant be found not guilty. When the State does not meet its burden, the only lawful solution is acquittal. Thank you.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 08:07 p.m.
@Fish Do you have your motion prepared as well?
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 08:07 p.m.
Or are you just going to ask me to deliberate
Fish
Fish 2025-04-30 08:08 p.m.
I probably won't do the motion so you can just deliberate
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 08:08 p.m.
Alright
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 08:08 p.m.
I will begin then
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 08:08 p.m.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:15 p.m.
@Fish @xolaaz @Frankie
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:15 p.m.
I have reached a verdict(edited)
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:16 p.m.
I will deliver it as follows:
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:16 p.m.
This was a bench trial in the matter of State of Mayflower versus VinnieMC2165, case number CR-82-25.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:16 p.m.
The defendant, VinnieMC2165, was charged with two counts arising from an incident that occurred on or about February 2, 2025.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:16 p.m.
Count One: Second Degree Murder.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:17 p.m.
Having reviewed the evidence, heard the testimony of witnesses, and considered the arguments of both counsel, the Court finds the defendant guilty, and he now stands convicted of that offense.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:17 p.m.
Based on the same set of facts, and further finding that the defendant intentionally discharged a firearm in a manner capable of causing great bodily harm or death, the Court finds—beyond a reasonable doubt—that the defendant committed assault with a deadly weapon.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:17 p.m.
He now stands convicted of that offense as well.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:18 p.m.
These findings are entered into the record as of today’s date, April 30, 2025. Sentencing will follow shortly.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:18 p.m.
COURT VERDICT
@Fish @xolaaz @Frankie
meowiitten pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:48 p.m.
xolaaz
xolaaz 2025-04-30 09:30 p.m.
god speed
Fish
Fish 2025-04-30 09:30 p.m.
@meowiitten Can i have a written opinion for appeal
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:31 p.m.
@Frankie @Fish @xolaaz

The defendant appeared before this Court charged with two felony offenses. After a full bench trial, this Court found him guilty on both counts.

For Count One, Murder in the Second Degree under 1 M.S.C. § 2101, the Court sentences you to 160 minutes of incarceration with the Department of Corrections—Lander City.
For Count Two, Assault with a Deadly Weapon under 1 M.S.C. § 2302, the Court sentences you to an additional 92 minutes of incarceration. These sentences shall run consecutively, for a total term of 252 minutes in custody.

In addition, the defendant is permanently prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving any firearm or ammunition. This condition is immediate and permanent.

Furthermore, the defendant may not gain or maintain peace officer status, effective today through June 19, 2025, or longer if extended by future court order.

The defendant will not subject to any fines or fees at this time.
The earliest eligible date for expungement is eight months from today, unless otherwise specified.

The defendant retains the right to appeal this judgment.

Mr. VinnieMC2165, you are hereby remanded into the custody of the Department of Corrections. The sentence is now in effect.
(edited)
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:31 p.m.
MINUTE ENTRY: Sentencing held on 4/30/2025 before Judge sadoimpacto as to VinnieMC2165 (1): Counts 1 and 2. Defendant sentenced to Two Hundred Fifty-Two (252) Minutes of Incarceration; Fifty (50) Days of Disqualification from Peace Officer Status Pursuant to 4 M.S.C. § 1601(d); Permanent Prohibition on the Possession, Shipment, Transport, or Receipt of Firearms or Ammunition; and Eight (8) Months of Delayed Expungement Eligibility Under 5 M.S.C. § 1503.1.
meowiitten pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:48 p.m.
FishFish
@meowiitten Can i have a written opinion for appeal
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:31 p.m.
You can appeal based on the record herein
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:33 p.m.
Post-conviction motions may be submitted in filing-center!
sadoimpactosadoimpacto used
/remove
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-30 09:33 p.m.
Case Modified
@meowiitten has removed @Fish from the case channel.
sadoimpactosadoimpacto used
/remove
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-30 09:33 p.m.
Case Modified
@meowiitten has removed @Frankie from the case channel.
sadoimpactosadoimpacto used
/remove
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-30 09:33 p.m.
Case Modified
@meowiitten has removed @xolaaz from the case channel.
sadoimpactosadoimpacto used
/remove
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-30 09:33 p.m.
Case Modified
@meowiitten has removed @w. from the case channel.
sadoimpactosadoimpacto used
/remove
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-30 09:33 p.m.
Case Modified
@meowiitten has removed @. from the case channel.
sadoimpactosadoimpacto used
/transcript
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-30 09:33 p.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-30 09:33 p.m.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-30 09:33 p.m.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:34 p.m.
SENTENCING ORDER; WARRANT OF COMMITMENT
@Fish @xolaaz @Frankie
meowiitten pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:48 p.m.
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
SENTENCING ORDER; WARRANT OF COMMITMENT @Fish @xolaaz @Frankie
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:34 p.m.
@Prothonotary's Office Archive this! And please serve this order on the Clark Cοunty Sheriff's Office.
sadoimpacto
sadoimpacto 2025-04-30 09:34 p.m.
@Brenda
sadoimpactosadoimpacto
@Prothonotary's Office Archive this! And please serve this order on the Clark Cοunty Sheriff's Office.
Brenda
Brenda 2025-05-03 04:34 p.m.
Proof of Service

I certify that I served a copy of the Court's sentencing order yesterday on Honoripedia
Brenda
Brenda 2025-05-03 04:34 p.m.
Case closed and archived
BrendaBrenda used
/transcript
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-03 04:35 p.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-03 04:35 p.m.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-05-03 04:35 p.m.
Exported 1151 messages